Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 May 27:13:211-221.
doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S307545. eCollection 2021.

The Effects of Amalgam Contamination and Different Surface Modifications on Dentin Shear Bond Strength When Using Different Adhesive Protocols

Affiliations

The Effects of Amalgam Contamination and Different Surface Modifications on Dentin Shear Bond Strength When Using Different Adhesive Protocols

Nojoud Alshehri et al. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. .

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of amalgam contamination, different surface treatments, and adhesive protocols on dentin shear bond strength (SBS) to bulk-fill composite resin material.

Materials and methods: Eighty teeth were fixed in molds, and the dentin was exposed and then polished. Sixty teeth were restored by amalgam and thermocycled to 10,000 cycles (5°C and 55°C, 30-second dwell time). The rest were restored with composite materials without amalgam predecessor. The samples were divided into G1 (with dentin pretreatment with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate), G2 (0.5 mm of dentin was removed), G3 (no surface modification), and G4 (samples were restored with bulk-fill composite). The bonded specimens were subdivided based on the adhesive protocol of the universal adhesive system used into etch-and-rinse and self-etch groups. Acid etching was done using 32% phosphoric acid. Composite resin was used for build-up using mold and glass. Specimens were cured and left for 24 h in distilled water at room temperature for polymerization reaction, underwent thermocycling for 5000 cycles, and were subjected to knife-edge shear bond testing. Descriptive statistics, independent t-tests, and one-way analysis of variance followed by pairwise comparisons were used to analyze the results.

Results: The highest mean SBS values were found in the control group where acid etching was used (24.46±2.24 MPa), followed by self-etching in the same group (21.92±2.54 MPa). Lower SBS values were associated with the amalgam-contaminated group. The lowest values were found in the dentin refreshment group when the self-etching mode was used (13.59±1.73 MPa). Chlorhexidine treatment improved the mean SBS value compared with the no treatment or dentin refreshment groups for both adhesive protocols.

Conclusion: Amalgam contamination may affect SBS values. Acid etching improved SBS for non-contaminated dentin. Chlorhexidine improved SBS for amalgam-contaminated dentin as a surface treatment but had no significant effect.

Keywords: chlorhexidine; dentin refreshment; resin-based composite; universal adhesive system.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest in this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Shear bond strength (MPa) in all tested groups.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution of adhesive failure types among experimental groups.
Figure 3
Figure 3
A photograph of the different types of failure. (A) Adhesive failure, (B) cohesive in composite, (C) cohesive in dentin, and (D) mixed.
Figure 4
Figure 4
A photomicrograph of two different specimens with different magnifications that are bonded using the etch-and-rinse protocol in which the formation abundant resin tags are clear.
Figure 5
Figure 5
A photomicrograph of two different specimens with different magnifications that are bonded using the self-etch adhesive protocol showing demineralized dentin with no to little resin tags.

Similar articles

References

    1. Bharti R, Wadhwani KK, Tikku AP, Chandra A. Dental amalgam: an update. J Conserv Dent. 2010;13(4):204–208. doi:10.4103/0972-0707.73380 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mjor IA. Placement and replacement of restorations. Oper Dent. 1981;6:49–54. - PubMed
    1. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater. 2007;23(1):2–8. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.036 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Drake CW, Maryniuk GA, Bentley C. Reasons for restoration replacement: differences in practice patterns. Quintessence Int. 1990;21(2):125–130. - PubMed
    1. Eltahlah D, Lynch CD, Chadwick BL, Blum IR, Wilson NHF. An update on the reasons for placement and replacement of direct restorations. J Dent. 2018;72:1–7. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2018.03.001 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources