Biomedical subjects

Saulo Geraldeli

Publications and source records attributed to Saulo Geraldeli.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of two dentin adhesives applied on dry vs moist dentin.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of substrate moisture on the clinical behavior of two dentin adhesives after 18 months. The null hypothesis tested was that drying dentin with air upon rinsing off the acid would not influence the clinical performance of two dentin adhesives as compared to leaving the preparation visibly moist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients were enrolled in this study. One hundred twenty-eight restorations divided into 4 groups were inserted and evaluated at baseline: (1) NT/Moist - Prime & Bond NT, an acetone-based adhesive, applied on moist dentin; (2) NT/Dried - Prime & Bond NT applied on dentin dried with air for 3 to 4 s; (3) SB/Moist - Single Bond, an ethanol- and water-based adhesive, applied on moist dentin; (4) SB/Dried - Single Bond applied on dentin dried with air for 3 to 4 s. A microfilled composite resin was used for all restorations. Patients were recalled at 6 and 18 months. RESULTS: At 18 months after initial placement, 110 restorations (86% recall rate) were re-evaluated. Retention rates at 18 months were 92% for NT/Moist, 93% for NT/Dried, 100% for SB/Moist, and 89% for SB/Dried. No statistically significant differences were found among groups for retention rate. Both NT/Moist and SB/Moist resulted in a significant decrease in sensitivity to air from baseline to 18 months. When data were pooled for the variable "substrate moisture", SB resulted in an overall retention rate of 95%, while NT resulted in a retention rate of 92% (statistically similar). The marginal adaptation with SB was significantly worse at 18 months than at baseline. CONCLUSION: The moisture level of the dentin substrate in noncarious cervical lesions does not influence retention of composite restorations, but moist conditions caused less sensitivity to air. When applied as per manufacturers' instructions (moist dentin), both adhesives resulted in Class V retention rates exceeding the ADA 18-month full acceptance guidelines.

Acrylic Resins↗

PubMed2004

Push-out bond strengths of tooth-colored posts bonded with different adhesive systems.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of luting systems and root region on the push-out bond strengths of a glass fiber-reinforced post and a zirconia post. METHODS: Thirty-two extracted human anterior teeth (central incisors and canines) were endodontically treated with lateral condensation of gutta percha and AH26 sealer. Teeth were randomly assigned to eight groups (n = 4 per group). Two post systems from the same manufacturer (Cosmopost, a zirconia post; or FRC Postec, a glass fiber-reinforced post) were placed with a luting system (bonding agent and resin luting agent). C-Post was cemented with One-Step and Post Cement Hi-X was used as the light-polymerized adhesive control. ParaPost Fiber White cemented with ParaPost Adhesive and ParaPost Resin Cement was used as an auto-polymerized adhesive control. The roots were sectioned in equal thirds (apical, middle and cervical). A push-out test was performed in each section to measure regional bond strengths in MPa. Means were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and Duncan's post-hoc test (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: The fiber posts ranked in the highest statistical subset regardless of the luting system: ParaPost Fiber White (self-cure control), FRC Postec bonded with Excite DSC/Variolink II, FRC Postec bonded with Syntac/Variolink II, FRC Postec bonded with Excite DSC/Experimental Self Cure Cement, and C-Post bonded with One Step/Hi-X. The zirconia post Cosmopost ranked in the lowest subsets regardless of the adhesive system used at P < 0.05. Means for the medium region of the root (5.0 +/- 0.8 MPa) were not statistically different from those obtained either in the cervical or in the apical region. Means for the cervical root region (6.2 +/- 0.9 MPa) were statistically higher than those of the apical region (4.5 +/- 1.1 MPa) at P < 0.001.

Composite Resins↗

PubMed2003

Bonding characteristics of self-etching adhesives to intact versus prepared enamel.

PURPOSE: This study tested the null hypothesis that the preparation of the enamel surface would not affect the enamel microtensile bond strengths of self-etching adhesive materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten bovine incisors were trimmed with a diamond saw to obtain a squared enamel surface with an area of 8 x 8 mm. The specimens were randomly assigned to five adhesives: (1) ABF (Kuraray), an experimental two-bottle self-etching adhesive; (2) Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray), a two-bottle self-etching adhesive; (3) One-Up Bond F (Tokuyama), an all-in-one adhesive; (4) Prompt L-Pop (3M ESPE), an all-in-one adhesive; and (5) Single Bond (3M ESPE), a two-bottle total-etch adhesive used as positive control. For each specimen, one half was roughened with a diamond bur for 5 seconds under water spray, whereas the other half was left unprepared. The adhesives were applied as per manufacturers' directions. A universal hybrid composite resin (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE) was inserted in three layers of 1.5 mm each and light-cured. Specimens were sectioned in X and Y directions to obtain bonded sticks with a cross-sectional area of 0.8 +/- 0.2 mm2. Sticks were tested in tension in an Instron at a cross-speed of 1 mm per minute. Statistical analysis was carried out with two-way analysis of variance and Duncan's test at p < .05. Ten extra specimens were processed for observation under a field-emission scanning electron microscope. RESULTS: Single Bond, the total-etch adhesive, resulted in statistically higher microtensile bond strength than any of the other adhesives regardless of the enamel preparation (unprepared = 31.5 MPa; prepared = 34.9 MPa, not statistically different at p < .05). All the self-etching adhesives resulted in higher microtensile bond strength when enamel was roughened than when enamel was left unprepared. However, for ABF and for Clearfil SE Bond this difference was not statistically significant at p > .05. When applied to ground enamel, mean bond strengths of Prompt L-Pop were not statistically different from those of Clearfil SE Bond and ABF. One-Up Bond F did not bond to unprepared enamel. Commercial self-etching adhesives performed better on prepared enamel than on unprepared enamel. The field-emission scanning electron microscope revealed a deep interprismatic etching pattern for the total-etch adhesive, whereas the self-etching systems resulted in an etching pattern ranging from absent to moderate.

Acid Etching, Dental↗

PubMed2003

Total-etch versus self-etch adhesive: effect on postoperative sensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Self-etching adhesives are believed to prevent postoperative sensitivity when used under posterior resin-based composite restorations. The authors tested a twofold hypothesis: a self-etch, or SE, adhesive would result in less postoperative sensitivity than a total-etch, or TE, adhesive; an SE adhesive would result in poorer enamel marginal integrity than a TE adhesive. METHODS: Patients were selected on the basis of requiring Class I and II restorations in molars and premolars. The authors placed 30 restorations with the SE material (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray America, New York) and 36 restorations with Prime & Bond NT (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del.), which uses 34 percent phosphoric acid to etch enamel and dentin simultaneously. Preparations were of standard design, with all margins in enamel without beveling. Upon rubber dam isolation, the authors conditioned the enamel and dentin walls with the self-etching primer (for Clearfil SE Bond) or etched with the proprietary 34 percent phosphoric acid (for Prime & Bond NT), followed by application of the corresponding dentin adhesive. Teeth were restored with the proprietary hybrid resin-based composite indicated for posterior restorations: Clearfil AP-X for Clearfil SE Bond or Esthet-X Micro Matrix Restorative for Prime & Bond NT. The restored teeth were evaluated preoperatively and at two weeks, eight weeks and six months postoperatively for sensitivity to cold (ice), air and masticatory forces, as well as for marginal discoloration. RESULTS: Analysis of variance revealed no statistically significant differences in postoperative sensitivity between the SE and TE materials at any recall time. Marginal discoloration was rated as "absent" for all restorations at six months. Only one tooth displayed sensitivity to occlusal forces at six months. CONCLUSION: The SE adhesive did not differ from the TE adhesive in regard to sensitivity and marginal discoloration. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Postoperative sensitivity may depend on the restorative technique rather than on the type of dentin adhesive used.

Acid Etching, Dental↗

PubMed2003

Bond strengths of tooth-colored posts, effect of sealer, dentin adhesive, and root region.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of sealer, dentin bonding agent, and root region on the push-out bond strengths of three tooth colored posts. METHODS: 24 extracted human single rooted maxillary central incisors and canines were endodontically-treated using gutta percha and Roth's 801 or AH26 sealer. Posts (Cosmopost, Fibrekor, or Parapost Fiber White) were placed using one of two adhesive systems (Parapost Cement Conditioner with Parapost Cement, or One-Step with Hi-X Post self-cure resin cement). The push-out test was performed on different sections of the root to measure bond strengths. RESULTS: Cosmopost showed significantly lower mean bond strengths than either Fibrekor or Parapost. Bond strengths of the posts in the crown section were significantly higher than those in any of the three root areas measured. Neither the eugenol-containing sealer nor the bonding agent type had any effect on bond strength. Post type and root region significantly affected bond strength while sealer type or bonding agent had no effect on bond strength.

Analysis of Variance↗

PubMed2002

In vivo influence of residual moisture on microtensile bond strengths of one-bottle adhesives.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the microtensile bond strengths of three dentin adhesives applied on clinically moist dentin or on dentin that was dried with air for 5 seconds. The null hypothesis to test was that the level of residual moisture does not influence bond strengths when restorations are placed in vivo. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four premolars scheduled to be extracted for orthodontic reasons from patients between the ages of 15 and 23 years were restored with one of the following adhesive systems followed by a mini hybrid composite resin: Excite (Ivoclar/Vivadent), an ethanol-based dentin adhesive; Prime & Bond NT (Dentsply/Caulk), an acetone-based dentin adhesive; and Single Bond (3M ESPE), an ethanol and water-based dentin adhesive. After extraction, the specimens were sectioned with a slow-speed diamond saw in two perpendicular directions to obtain sticks with a cross-section of 0.7 +/- 0.2 mm2. The specimens were attached to a Geraldeli device and fractured using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm per minute. RESULTS: For each dentin adhesive, there were no statistical differences between means for dry dentin versus moist dentin. Single Bond and Prime & Bond NT ranked in the same statistical subset regardless of the moisture condition of the substrate. Both Excite, dry, and Excite, moist, resulted in statistically lower bond strengths than Single Bond, moist, but similar to those of Single Bond, dry, Prime & Bond NT, moist, and Prime & Bond NT, dry. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: In this study, the level of residual moisture did not influence microtensile bond strengths. Clinically, the degree of moisture left on the dentin surface upon rinsing off the etching gel may not be as relevant as previously reported in laboratory studies.

Acetone↗