Dpto. Odontología

The aim of this study was to determine whether the residual presence of eugenol in coronal dentin may compromise the bond strength of resin-based restorative materials. A search was performed on MEDLINE/Pubmed, Scopus, and by hand search for relevant papers. No restriction was applied for language and publication date. The studies selected for analysis tested specimens with reduced size (micro-shear bond strength ( SBS) and micro-tensile bond strength ( TBS)) of adhesive systems and resin-based restorative materials applied to coronary dentin “contaminated” with eugenol-based materials. The search provided 335 articles, but only 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled global analysis showed a significant influence of eugenol, as it negatively influenced the bond strength of resin-based restorations (5.79 (3.31–8.28) MPa, p < 0.00001). The subgroup analyses for conventional etch-and-rinse (p = 0.003) and self-etch (p < 0.0004) adhesive systems, as well as for SBS (p = 0.01) and TBS (p < 0.0001), showed a negative influence of eugenol on the bond strength. Data were statistically heterogeneous. However, it was possible to observe that eugenol could negatively a ect the bonding of resin-based restorative materials to dentin. Further evidence is necessary in order to acquire more accurate information about this issue and confirm that the residual presence of eugenol in dentin compromises the bond strength of resin-based materials.

This study aimed at evaluating the microtensile bond strength (MTBS) and fractographic features of dentine-bonded specimens created using universal adhesives applied in etch-and-rinse (ER) or self-etching (SE) mode in combination with modern ion-releasing resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC)-basedmaterials after load cycling and artificial saliva aging. Two universal adhesives (FTB: Futurabond M+, VOCO, Germany; SCU: Scotchbond Universal, 3M Oral Care, USA) were used. Composite build-ups were made with conventional nano-filled composite (AURA, SDI, Australia), conventional resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Ionolux VOCO, Germany), or a (RMGIC)-based composite (ACTIVA, Pulpdent, USA). The specimens were divided in three groups and immersed in deionized water for 24 h, load-cycled (350,000 cycles; 3 Hz; 70 N), or load-cycled and cut into matchsticks and finally immersed for 8 months in artificial saliva (AS). The specimens were cut into matchsticks and tested for microtensile bond strength. The results were analyzed statistically using three-way ANOVA and Fisher’s LSD post hoc test (p < 0.05). Fractographic analysis was performed through stereomicroscope and FE-SEM. FTB showed no significant drop in bond strength after aging. Unlike the conventional composite, the two RMGIC-based materials caused no bond strength reduction in SCU after load-cycle aging and after prolonged aging (8 months). The SEM fractographic analysis showed severe degradation, especially with composite applied on dentine bonded with SCU in ER mode; such degradation was less evident with the two GIC-based materials. The dentine-bond longevity may be influenced by the composition rather than the mode of application (ER vs. SE) of the universal adhesives. Moreover, the choice of the restorative material may play an important role on the longevity of the finalrestoration. Indeed, bioactive GIC-based materials may contribute to maintain the bonding performance of simplified universal adhesives over time, especially when these bonding systems are applied in ER mode.