About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 626103, 5 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/626103
Research Article

Shear Bond Strengths of Different Adhesive Systems to Biodentine

1Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Gazi, 8 Cadde, 82 Sokak, 06510 Ankara, Turkey
2Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Başkent, 06490 Ankara, Turkey

Received 5 August 2013; Accepted 5 September 2013

Academic Editors: E. J. Honkala and R. G. Palma-Dibb

Copyright © 2013 Mesut Enes Odabaş et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to measure the shear bond strength of different adhesive systems to Biodentine with different time intervals. Eighty specimens of Biodentine were prepared and divided into 8 groups. After 12 minutes, 40 samples were randomly selected and divided into 4 groups of 10 each: group 1: (etch-and-rinse adhesive system) Prime & Bond NT; group 2: (2-step self-etch adhesive system) Clearfil SE Bond; group 3: (1-step self-etch adhesive systems) Clearfil S3 Bond; group 4: control (no adhesive). After the application of adhesive systems, composite resin was applied over Biodentine. This procedure was repeated 24 hours after mixing additional 40 samples, respectively. Shear bond strengths were measured using a universal testing machine, and the data were subjected to 1-way analysis of variance and Scheffé post hoc test. No significant differences were found between all of the adhesive groups at the same time intervals (12 minutes and 24 hours) ( ). Among the two time intervals, the lowest value was obtained for group 1 (etch-and-rinse adhesive) at a 12-minute period, and the highest was obtained for group 2 (two-step self-etch adhesive) at a 24-hour period. The placement of composite resin used with self-etch adhesive systems over Biodentine showed better shear bond strength.

1. Introduction

Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) has rapidly gained acceptance in dentistry since its introduction in 1993 by Torabinejad [1]. However, MTA displays important limitations such as extending time, difficult handling properties, and discoloration potential of dental tissue [2, 3]. Recently, Biodentine (Septodont, Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, France) is a new tricalcium silicate-based restorative material has been introduced. The main component of Biodentine powder is tricalcium silicate, with the addition of calcium carbonate and zirconium oxide. The liquid is a solution of calcium chloride with a water-reducing agent. The addition of calcium chloride results in shorter setting time, as it also accelerates the rate of early strength development. Thus, the main advantages of Biodentine over MTA are its greater viscosity and its shorter setting time (12 min approximately).

Recently, promising biological properties have been reported for Biodentine on human pulp fibroblast cultures and on the dental pulp in an entire human tooth culture model [4, 5]. It has been demonstrated that Biodentine induced an effective dentinal repair when applied directly to mechanically exposed rat pulps [6]. In addition, Nowicka et al. [7] evaluated the clinical, radiographical, and histologic responses of the pulp-dentin complex after direct capping with Biodentine and MTA in human teeth. They found similar efficacy in the clinical setting and suggested that Biodentine may be considered an alternative to MTA in pulp-capping treatment during vital pulp therapy.

Biodentine is recommended for use as a dentine substitute under resin composite restorations and an endodontic repair material because of its biocompatibility, bioactivity, and biomineralization properties [4, 5]. However, the potential of restorative materials to attach Biodentine is not well known. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of 3 different adhesive systems (etch-and-rinse adhesive, two-step self-etch adhesive, and one-step self-etch adhesive systems) to Biodentine.

2. Materials and Methods

Three commercial adhesive systems, (etch-and-rinse adhesive system) Prime & Bond NT, (two-step self-etch adhesive system) Clearfil SE Bond, and (one-step self-etch adhesive systems) Clearfil S3 Bond, were tested in this study and applied as recommended by the manufacturers. The materials used are listed in Table 1.

tab1
Table 1: Materials used in the study.
2.1. Specimen Fabrication

A total of 80 acrylic blocks containing a central hole with a 4 mm diameter and a 2 mm height were prepared. Biodentine was mixed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The acrylic blocks were fully filled with Biodentine. Then, the specimens were stored at 37°C with 100% humidity for 12 minutes and 24 hours to encourage setting.

After 12 minutes, 40 samples were randomly selected and divided into 4 groups of 10 each: group 1: (etch-and-rinse adhesive system) Prime & Bond NT; group 2: (two-step self-etch adhesive system) Clearfil SE Bond; group 3: (one-step self-etch adhesive systems) Clearfil S3 Bond; group 4: control (no adhesive). In groups 1, 2, and 3, the corresponding adhesive system was applied over Biodentine according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Table 1), whereas in group 4, no adhesive system was applied. A composite material (Clearfil Mejesty, Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc, Okayama, Japan) was applied into a cylindrical shaped plastic matrix with an internal diameter of 2 mm and a height of 2 mm. Light curing was administered with a light-emitting diode light-curing unit (Elipar FreeLight 2: 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) with an intensity of 1,200 mV/cm2 for 20 seconds. This procedure was repeated at 24 hours after mixing additional 40 samples, respectively.

2.2. Shear Bond Strength Test

The polymerized specimens were stored in 100% relative humidity at 37°C for 24 hours. For shear bond strength testing, the specimens were secured in a holder placed on the platen of the testing machine and then sheared with a knife-edge blade on a universal testing machine (Lloyd LRX: Lloyd Instruments, Fareham, Hants, UK) at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. Shear bond strength in MPa was calculated by dividing the peak load at failure with the specimen surface area.

Fracture Analysis. Fractured test specimens were examined under a stereomicroscope at a magnification of ×25 (Stemi 2000C: Carl Zeiss, Gottingen, Germany). Specimen fractures were classified as follows: cohesive failure exclusively within Biodentine, cohesive failure exclusively within restorative material, adhesive failure that occurred at the Biodentine-restorative material interface, or mixed failure when 2 modes of failure happened simultaneously. Fracture analysis was performed by a single observer who was completely uninformed about the experimental groups.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

One-way analysis of variance was used to detect differences in bond strength among the experimental groups. Post hoc comparisons were performed using the Scheffé test.

3. Results

The mean values and standard deviations of shear bond strengths are given in Table 2.

tab2
Table 2: Mean shear bond strength values of adhesives (MPa) to Biodentine.

When shear bond strengths of adhesive systems were compared, no significant differences were found between group 1 (etch-and-rinse adhesive), group 2 (two-step self-etch adhesive), and group 3 (one-step self-etch adhesive) at the same time intervals ( ).

Among 2 time intervals, the bond strength of group 2 (two-step self-etch adhesive) at a 24-hour period presented significantly higher bond strength values (19,559 MPa) than group 1 (etch-and-rinse adhesive) and group 4 (control) at 12-minute period ( ).

Table 3 shows the fracture modes of the experimental groups. Most of the observed modes of failure were cohesive in Biodentine and adhesive failure. No specimens failed cohesively within composite resin.

tab3
Table 3: Fracture modes of thespecimens after shear bond test bond.

4. Discussion

Because Biodentine is recommended for use as a dentine substitute under restorations, the bond strength between restorative materials and Biodentine is important for the quality of filling. In this study, the bond strength of a resin composite when bonded to Biodentine with 3 different adhesive systems (i.e., etch-and-rinse adhesive, two-step self-etch adhesive, and one-step self-etch adhesive systems) was evaluated at 2 time intervals (12 min and 24 h). We found that the mean bond strength values ranged from 9,127 to 19,559 MPa. The lowest value was obtained for group 1 (etch-and-rinse adhesive) at a 12-minute period, and the highest was obtained for group 2 (two-step self-etch adhesive) at a 24-hour period. Failure analysis showed adhesive, cohesive, and/or mixed fractures, depending on the adhesive tested. In this study, a general trend was observed; specimens that presented with lower bond strength failed more at composite resin and Biodentine interface (adhesive). On the other hand, specimens with higher bond strength failed more cohesively in Biodentine.

Tricalcium silicate is one of the main constituents of MTA. Tricalcium silicate is used as a bone cement [7] and also as an endodontic material [8]. This material is synthesized in the laboratory from high purity raw materials unlike Portland cements in MTA. It has been demonstrated that pure tricalcium silicate is a suitable replacement for the cementitious component in MTA due to their similar composition and bioactivity [9]. Tricalcium silicate cement has been found to have shorter setting time than MTA and good injectability and bioactivity [10]. One such formulation is Biodentine (Septodont) which was developed as dentin replacement material.

There are no studies evaluating the bond strength of restorative materials when bonded to Biodentine with adhesive systems for the purpose of outcome comparison. However, tricalcium silicate is the main component of MTA [11]; the outcomes of this study could be compared with earlier studies about MTA.

Tunç et al. [12] evaluated the bond strength of a composite and a compomer to white MTA using etch-and-rinse adhesive (Single Bond) and one-step self-etch adhesive (Prompt L-Pop). Different from our findings, they found etch-and-rinse adhesive systems bonded to white MTA significantly more strongly than and one-step self-etch adhesive systems in both composite and compomer materials. Bayrak et al. [13] also found that etch-and-rinse adhesive systems exhibited higher shear bond strength than self-etch adhesive systems. However, Neelakantan et al. [14] found that one-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil S3 Bond) demonstrated higher bond strength to white MTA than did the two-step self-etch adhesive (AdheSE) and the etch-and-rinse adhesive systems (Prime & Bond NT) immediately and 24 hours after fabrication. Researchers have not reached a consensus on appropriate adhesive systems over MTA yet.

In this study, the highest bond strength value was obtained with self-etch adhesive systems. There is controversy concerning the efficacy of self-etch systems. Some investigations show that they provide dentin bond strength comparable with that obtained with etch-and-rinse system [1518], whereas others have observed significantly lower bond strengths [1922]. Amongst the self-etch adhesives, the results of this study revealed that two-step self-etch adhesive system (Clearfil SE Bond) exhibited higher shear bond strength than one-step self-etch adhesive system (Clearfil S3 Bond). This result was in agreement with those of previous studies which found that the bond strengths of two-step self-etch adhesives were higher than those of one-step self-etch adhesives [2326].

5. Conclusions

This in vitro study found no statistically significant differences between all the three adhesive systems at each of the 2 time intervals. However, Biodentine has shorter setting time than MTA (12 min); the highest bond strength value was obtained for two-step self-etch adhesive at a 24-hour period. On the other hand, because of the variations in the composition of different resin composites and adhesive systems, different results could be achieved. The adhesive system did not affect the bond strength of Biodentine. Further investigations are needed for better understanding of the adhesion mechanism of adhesive systems to Biodentine.

Conflict of Interests

The authors deny any conflict of interests related to this study.

References

  1. S.-J. Lee, M. Monsef, and M. Torabinejad, “Sealing ability of a mineral trioxide aggregate for repair of lateral root perforations,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 541–544, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. M. Parirokh and M. Torabinejad, “Mineral trioxide aggregate: a comprehensive literature review-part I: chemical, physical, and antibacterial properties,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 16–27, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. T. Dammaschke, H. U. V. Gerth, H. Züchner, and E. Schäfer, “Chemical and physical surface and bulk material characterization of white ProRoot MTA and two Portland cements,” Dental Materials, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 731–738, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. P. Laurent, J. Camps, M. De Méo, J. Déjou, and I. About, “Induction of specific cell responses to a Ca3SiO5-based posterior restorative material,” Dental Materials, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 1486–1494, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. P. Laurent, J. Camps, and I. About, “BiodentineTM induces TGF-β1 release from human pulp cells and early dental pulp mineralization,” International Endodontic Journal, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 439–448, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. X. V. Tran, C. Gorin, C. Willig, et al., “Effect of a calcium-silicate-based restorative cement on pulp repair,” Journal of Dental Research, vol. 91, no. 12, pp. 1166–1171, 2012.
  7. A. Nowicka, M. Lipski, M. Parafiniuk, et al., “Response of human dental pulp capped with biodentine and mineral trioxide aggregate,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 743–747, 2013.
  8. X. Wang, H. Sun, and J. Chang, “Characterization of Ca3SiO5/CaCl2 composite cement for dental application,” Dental Materials, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 74–82, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. C.-C. Chen, C.-C. Ho, C.-H. David Chen, and S.-J. Ding, “Physicochemical properties of calcium silicate cements for endodontic treatment,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 1288–1291, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. W. Zhao, J. Wang, W. Zhai, Z. Wang, and J. Chang, “The self-setting properties and in vitro bioactivity of tricalcium silicate,” Biomaterials, vol. 26, no. 31, pp. 6113–6121, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. J. Camilleri, “The physical properties of accelerated Portland cement for endodontic use,” International Endodontic Journal, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 151–157, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. E. Ş. Tunç, I. Ş. Ş. Sönmez, Ş. Bayrak, and T. Eǧilmez, “The Evaluation of Bond Strength of a Composite and a Compomer to White Mineral Trioxide Aggregate with Two Different Bonding Systems,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 603–605, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. Ş. Bayrak, E. Ş. Tunç, I. Şaroǧlu, and T. Eǧilmez, “Shear bond strengths of different adhesive systems to white mineral trioxide aggregate,” Dental Materials Journal, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 62–67, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. P. Neelakantan, D. Grotra, C. V. Subbarao, and F. Garcia-Godoy, “The shear bond strength of resin-based composite to white mineral trioxide aggregate,” The Journal of American Dental Association, vol. 143, no. 8, pp. e40–e45, 2012.
  15. M. A. P. Borges, I. C. Matos, and K. R. H. C. Dias, “Influence of two self-etching primer systems on enamel adhesion,” Brazilian Dental Journal, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 113–118, 2007. View at Scopus
  16. R. W. Arnold, E. C. Combe, and J. H. Warford Jr., “Bonding of stainless steel brackets to enamel with a new self-etching primer,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 122, no. 3, pp. 274–276, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. V. Cacciafesta, M. F. Sfondrini, M. De Angelis, A. Scribante, and C. Klersy, “Effect of water and saliva contamination on shear bond strength of brackets bonded with conventional, hydrophilic, and self-etching primers,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 123, no. 6, pp. 633–640, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. J. C. Dorminey, W. J. Dunn, and L. J. Taloumis, “Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with a modified 1-step etchant-and-primer technique,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 410–413, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. S. E. Bishara, L. VonWald, J. F. Laffoon, and J. J. Warren, “Effect of a self-etch primer/adhesive on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 119, no. 6, pp. 621–624, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. S. E. Bishara, R. Ajlouni, J. F. Laffoon, and J. J. Warren, “Effect of a Fluoride-Releasing Self-Etch Acidic Primer on the Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets,” Angle Orthodontist, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 199–202, 2002. View at Scopus
  21. R. Yamada, T. Hayakawa, and K. Kasai, “Effect of using self-etching primer for bonding orthodontic brackets,” Angle Orthodontist, vol. 72, no. 6, pp. 558–564, 2002. View at Scopus
  22. I. L. Zeppieri, C.-H. Chung, and F. K. Mante, “Effect of saliva on shear bond strength of an orthodontic adhesive used with moisture-insensitive and self-etching primers,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 414–419, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. S. Bouillaguet, P. Gysi, J. C. Wataha et al., “Bond strength of composite to dentin using conventional, one-step, and self-etching adhesive systems,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 55–61, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. C. Kaaden, J. M. Powers, K.-H. Friedl, and G. Schmalz, “Bond strength of self-etching adhesives to dental hard tissues,” Clinical oral investigations, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 155–160, 2002. View at Scopus
  25. J. De Munck, B. Van Meerbeek, I. Satoshi et al., “Microtensile bond strengths of one- and two-step self-etch adhesives to bur-cut enamel and dentin,” American Journal of Dentistry, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 414–420, 2003. View at Scopus
  26. S. Inoue, M. A. Vargas, Y. Abe et al., “Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to dentin,” Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 237–245, 2001. View at Scopus