Effect of Dentin Contamination with Hemostatic Agents and Cleaning Techniques on Bonding with Self-Adhesive Resin Cement

Abstract

BACKGROUND Dentin contamination with hemostatic agents before bonding indirect restorations negatively affects the bond strength. However, the consensus on which materials could be used to clean contamination of hemostatic agents has not been explored. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of Katana Cleaner applied on the surface of dentin contaminated with hemostatic agents on the shear bond strength (SBS) of self-adhesive resin cement by comparing it with three other surface cleaners. MATERIAL AND METHODS Ninety dentin specimens were divided into a no contamination group (control) (n=10), 4 groups contaminated with 25% aluminum chloride (Viscostat Clear) (n=40), and 4 groups contaminated with 20% ferric sulfate (Viscostat) (n=40). Subsequently, 4 different cleaners were used for each contamination group (water rinse, phosphoric acid, chlorhexidine, and Katana Cleaner). Then, self-adhesive resin cement was directly bonded to the treated surfaces. All specimens were subjected to 5000 thermal cycles of artificial aging. The shear bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine. RESULTS Two-way analysis of variance showed that the contaminant type as the main factor was statistically non-significant (p=0.655), cleaner type as the main factor was highly significant (p<0.001), and interaction between the contaminant and cleaner was non-significant (p=0.51). The cleaner type was the main factor influencing the bond strength. Phosphoric acid and chlorhexidine showed better performance than Katana Cleaner. CONCLUSIONS Cleaning dentin surface contamination with phosphoric acid and chlorhexidine had better performance than with Katana Cleaner.

Figure 1

Flowchart summarizing the study.

Figure 2

Different steps of the study: (A) tooth embedded in the resin blocks, (B) tooth section to expose the dentin for bonding, and (C) shear bond strength (SBS) using the universal testing machine.

Figure 3

Comparison between the 2 contaminants’ mean values of shear bond strength.

Figure 4

Failure mode evaluated under a light stereomicroscope at 20× magnification. (A) adhesive failure mode presentation. (B) Mixed failure mode presentation.