Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 199
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE  
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 37-40
The effect of a dentin desensitizer on the shear bond strength of composite to dentin using three different bonding agents: An invitro study


Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sree Mookambika Institute of Dental Sciences, Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission27-May-2016
Date of Decision18-Aug-2016
Date of Acceptance20-Oct-2016
Date of Web Publication28-Jun-2017
 

   Abstract 

Objective: The effect of dentin desensitizer Systemp on the shear bond strength of composite resin to dentin using three different bonding agents, i.e., Prime & BondNT, Xeno V+, and Futurabond DC were evaluated.
Materials and Methods: Sixty recently extracted human premolars were divided into six groups of ten teeth each. The superficial dentin was etched with 37% phosphoric acid. In GroupsI, II, and III, Prime & Bond NT, Xeno V+, and Futurabond DC, respectively, were applied to dentin and composite placed. Following application of dentin desensitizer Systemp in GroupsIV, V, and VI, Prime & Bond NT, Xeno V+, and Futurabond DC, respectively, were applied to dentin and composite placed. The shear bond strength was evaluated. Data obtained were statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance, post hoc, and Dunnett's test.
Results: Following application of dentin desensitizer Systemp, mean shear bond strength increased when Prime & Bond NT bonding agent was used while it decreased for Xeno V+and Futurabond DC bonding agents.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this invitro study, it was observed that following application of dentin desensitizer Systemp, mean shear bond strength may increase or decrease depending on the bonding agents used.

Keywords: Dentin desensitizer; Futurabond DC; Prime & Bond NT; shear bond strength; Systemp; Xeno V+

How to cite this article:
Mushtaq EA, Mathai V, Nair RS, Angelo JM. The effect of a dentin desensitizer on the shear bond strength of composite to dentin using three different bonding agents: An invitro study. J Conserv Dent 2017;20:37-40

How to cite this URL:
Mushtaq EA, Mathai V, Nair RS, Angelo JM. The effect of a dentin desensitizer on the shear bond strength of composite to dentin using three different bonding agents: An invitro study. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2017 [cited 2019 Nov 12];20:37-40. Available from: http://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2017/20/1/37/209069

   Introduction Top


With the emergence of improved adhesives and composite resin systems, resin-bonded composite restorations have become predictably successful. However, polymerization shrinkage and postoperative sensitivity still remain a tough challenge for clinicians to deal with.[1] Several clinical studies indicate that up to 30% of the study population report postoperative sensitivity following posterior composite resin restorations.[2]

The postoperative sensitivity could be due to trauma from tooth preparation, leakage of the restoration with the resultant ingress of bacteria as a result of polymerization shrinkage, deformation of restoration under occlusal stress which in turn transmits hydraulic pressure to the odontoblastic processes.[3] The hydrodynamic theory of Brannstorm attributes dentinal sensitivity to chemical, thermal, or osmotic stimuli that cause the fluid within the tubules to flow inward or outward. This creates a mechanical disturbance that excites nerve fibers in the pulp and elicits a pain response.[4]

A few of the treatment modalities for hypersensitive teeth include reducing tubular fluid movements by reducing dentin permeability or reducing the excitability of intradental nerves with neurally active agents.[5] For this, desensitizing agents are used. They reduce the dentin permeability by occluding or sealing the dentinal tubules and contain components such as fluoride, triclosan, benzalkonium chloride, and glutaraldehyde.[6]

Systemp is a desensitizer which can reduce hypersensitivity by occluding and sealing the exposed dentinal tubules.[7]

Prime & Bond NT, a fifth-generation bonding agent, is an acetone-based adhesive. It is a total etch bonding agent requiring a moist dentin surface for adequate bonding.[8]

Xeno V +, a seventh-generation bonding agent, is a one component self-etching adhesive that provides for simultaneous conditioning and priming of both enamel and dentin with improved bond strength.[9]

Futurabond DC, an eighth-generation bonding agent, is a dual-cured, self-etching adhesive, that is, reinforced with nanoparticles.[10]

The use of a dentin desensitizer before application of bonding agent may reduce the postoperative sensitivity associated with composite restorations, but its effect on bond strength using different generations of bonding agents need to be evaluated. Therefore, this study was done to evaluate the effect of dentin desensitizer Systemp on the shear bond strength of composite resin to dentin using three different generation bonding agents, i.e.,Prime & Bond NT(fifth generation), Xeno V +(seventh generation), and Futurabond DC(eight generation). The null hypothesis was that there would be no change in the shear bond strength after application of a dentin desensitizer.


   Materials and Methods Top


Specimen preparation

Sixty human maxillary premolars which were freshly extracted for orthodontic purpose and which were free of caries, anatomical defects, etc., were selected using a dental operating microscope(Pico, Carl Zeiss, Jena, Thuringia, Germany) at×20 magnification. The teeth were divided into six groups of ten teeth each. The teeth were thoroughly cleaned and stored in distilled water (Nice Chemical Laboratory Supplies Ltd, Kochi, Kerala, India). The specimens were prepared within 1month of extraction. The roots were sectioned off with a diamond disc (SS White, Lakewood, New Jersey, USA). The occlusal surface of the crowns was sectioned with the diamond disc to expose the superficial dentin surface. Each tooth was then embedded into a rectangular metal mould of 1cm×4cm using self-cure acrylic resin (Dental Products of India, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India) in such a way that the exposed occlusal dentin surface faced upward. The metal moulds with the acrylic resin were then stored in distilled water to dissipate the exothermic heat of polymerization. The dentin surface was polished with wet 600,800,1200 grit silicon carbide paper (Moyco precision abrasives, Montgomeryville, PA, USA) to create a smooth and flat surface for treatment and bonding.

Bonding procedure

The superficial dentin was etched with 37% phosphoric acid (D-Tech Dental Technologies, Pune, Maharashtra, India) for 15s, then rinsed with water for 20s and blot dried with a moist cotton pellet leaving a moist glistening surface. In GroupsI, II, and III, Prime & Bond NT(Dentsply, Konstanz, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany), XenoV + (Dentsply, Konstanz, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany), and Futurabond DC (Voco, Cuxhaven, Niedersachsen, Germany), respectively, were applied to dentin with the applicator brush and light cured according to the manufacturer's instructions using a light-curing unit(Dentsply, Milford, Detroit, USA) of intensity 500W/cm 2. In GroupsIV, V, and VI, Systemp desensitizer(Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein, Switzerland) was applied to dentin for 10s with an applicator brush and allowed to remain for 20s and then lightly dried with an air syringe. Prime & Bond NT, Xeno V +, and Futurabond DC were then applied to dentin of GroupsIV, V, VI, respectively. Shade A2 of Filtek Z350XT (3M, ESPE Dental Products, St. Paul, MN, USA) composite resin was dispensed with a teflon-coated instrument (GDC, Hoshiarpur, Punjab, India) and condensed into a mould of 5mm diameter and 4 mm height which was prepared using stainless steel bands(Denta, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India) of size 0.180×0.005 inches and which were placed on the treated dentin surface in all the groups. The stainless steel mould was completely filled with composite in increments of 2 mm thickness and each increment was light cured for 40s. AMylar strip (Samit Products, Jhandewalan, NewDelhi, India) was adapted over the final increment of composite in the mould to obtain a uniform superficial surface and light cured for 40s. The stainless steel bands were cut using a scalpel and removed. The specimens were stored in distilled water[Table1].{Table1}

Shear bond strength testing

Each specimen was placed in between the jigs of the universal testing machine(Model 3345; Instron Corp, Canton, Mass, USA). Aknife edge shearing chisel was engaged at the dentin-composite interface and force was applied perpendicular to the long axis of the specimen. The equipment was operated at a cross-head speed of 1mm/min and the load to debond the composite was recorded in Newton(N). The shear bond strength(MPa) was calculated by the ratio of the maximum load in Newton(N) to the cross-sectional area(mm 2) of the bonded interface.

Statistical analysis

The values obtained were statistically analyzed using computer software Statistical Package for Social Sciences(SPSS)(version16.0)(SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The data were expressed with the mean and standard deviation. Unpaired sample t-test was applied to find the statistical significance between the groups. One-way analysis of variance followed by post hoc and Dunnett's test was applied for multiple comparisons. P<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant at 95% confidence interval.


   Results Top


Maximum mean shear bond strength value was observed in GroupIV, statistically significant compared to GroupsI, II, V (P<0.05). Minimum shear bond strength value was observed in GroupV, significant compared to all other groups (P<0.05). No significant difference was observed in shear bond strength value when GroupIII was compared with GroupVI (P>0.05). Shear bond strength value of GroupI was significant compared to GroupsII, IV, V (P<0.05), not with GroupsIII, VI(P>0.05). Shear bond strength value of GroupII was significant compared to other groups(P<0.05). Shear bond strength value of GroupIII was significant compared to GroupsII, IV, V(P<0.05), not with GroupsI and VI (P>0.05)[Table2].{Table2}


   Discussion Top


Following the application of dentin desensitizer Systemp, the use of Prime & Bond NT showed an increase in bond strength while the use of Xeno V +showed a decrease. The use of Futurabond DC showed a decrease in bond strength but was not statistically significant. Hence, the null hypothesis that there would be no change in the shear bond strength after application of a dentin desensitizer was rejected.

Systemp desensitizer contains polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate which precipitates plasma proteins and leads to local concentrations in the dentinal tubules. Along with glutaraldehyde, it establishes stable, covalent bonds to proteins resulting in formation of firm protein plugs that occludes and seals the dentinal tubules thus reducing sensitivity.[11]

Prime & Bond NT, a single-bottle adhesive, contains nanofillers that supposedly reinforce the adhesive layer in the bonding interface. It also contains urethane dimethacrylate, a hydrophobic monomer for proper polymerization and cross-linking that bonds to surface-bound hydroxyl groups through its urethane. The presence of dipentaerythritol pentacrylate phosphoric acid ester(PENTA) facilitates the penetration of resin monomers into dentin for micromechanical bonding.[12]

The use of Prime & Bond NT following application of desensitizer showed an increase in bond strength. Dentin dehydration compromises the infiltration of the adhesive resin because of the collapse of the collagen network. The inclusion of water in the adhesive may re-expand the collapsed collagen fibrils and facilitate the infiltration of etched dentin by this acetone-based bonding agent. Acetone has been found to be a better solvent than water for resin monomers and it has the ability to displace water from the collagen network and facilitate saturation of conditioned dentin with primer components.[13],[14] Systemp desensitizer may function as a rewetting agent before application of bonding agent.[15] Thus, along with Prime & Bond NT, it may result in optimal wetting. This dual wetting effect may facilitate better bond strength. Ravikumar etal. in a study found that Prime & Bond NT exhibited higher bond strengths after application of Gluma desensitizer.[16] A study by Bhatia etal. however found that the use of Prime & Bond NT did not exhibit a significant difference in bond strengths after application of Denshield and Sensodent-K desensitizers.[2]

Xeno V +has high tolerance to storage conditions of up to 24°C due to monomers, namely, acrylic resins with amide groups, inverse functionalized phosphoric acid esters, and the use of tertiary butanol. The acidic monomer, acryloyl aminoalkyl sulfonic acid, is added to the formulation to increase the acidity. The presence of acrylic acid, a wetting aid, promotes the penetration of bigger cross-linking monomers into the tooth substrate.[9]

The re-wetting of dentin by the desensitizer along with the acrylic acid wetting aid in Xeno V +may have led to overwetting of dentin. The excess water in the etched dentin can result in an inadequate bonding substrate. The adhesive resin may undergo phase separation of the hydrophobic components when excess water is present resulting in resin globule formation.[17] This may be the reason for the decrease in bond strength when Xeno V +was used following application of desensitizer. Astudy by Margvelashvili etal. found that the use of Xeno V provided lower bond strengths compared to the use of Prime & Bond NT.[18]

Futurabond DC contains significant amounts of highly functional nanosized cross-linking agents such as silica particles. It is available in a single use blister pack and has the property of being dual cured all in one.[19]

The use of Futurabond DC following application of desensitizer showed a decrease in bond strength, but it was not statistically significant. Futurabond DC contains ethanol as the organic solvent which facilitates adequate wetting of the application surface.[19] Thus, the wetting provided by Futurabond DC and the re-wetting by the desensitizer may have led to overwetting and weakening of the resin-dentin interphase. This may be the reason for the decrease in bond strength.

Even though the use of a dentin desensitizer before application of bonding agent may reduce postoperative sensitivity, it was observed that the dentin shear bond strength may increase or decrease depending on the bonding agent used.

Several factors influence invitro bond strength to dentin such as the type and age of the tooth, the degree of dentin mineralization, the dentin surface being bonded, the storage media, the environmental relative humidity in substrates, and testing conditions.[20] Other variables such as functional monomers, cross-linking monomers, solvents, inhibitors, and activators may also differ in proportions in bonding agents. The amount of monomers, diluents, and filler loads also vary.[10] Moreover, desensitizing agents differ in composition and in their mode of action. All these factors could affect the shear bond strength. Due to the inherent limitations of an invitro study, the bonding and sealing ability of bonding agents to dentin warrant further investigation. Further clinical trials using different desensitizers and bonding agents may be necessary before a final conclusion on the effect of desensitizers on dentin shear bond strength.


   Conclusion Top


Within the limitations of this invitro study, it was observed that the mean shear bond strength of composite to dentin may increase or decrease depending on the bonding agent that is used following the application of dentin desensitizer Systemp.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
AuschillTM, KochCA, WolkewitzM, HellwigE, ArweilerNB. Occurrence and causing stimuli of postoperative sensitivity in composite restorations. Oper Dent 2009;34:3-10.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
BhatiaS, KrishnaswamyMM. Effect of two different dentin desensitizers on shear bond strength of two different bonding agents to dentin: An invitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2012;23:703-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
UnemoriM, MatsuyaY, AkashiA, GotoY, AkamineA. Composite resin restoration and postoperative sensitivity: Clinical follow-up in an undergraduate program. JDent 2001;29:7-13.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.
NicolaX. The dentine hypersensitivity patient–A total management package. Int Dent J 2007;57:411-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
PashleyDH. Dentine permeability and its role in the pathobiology of dentine sensitivity. Arch Oral Biol 1994;39 Suppl 1:73S-80S.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Külünk S, Saraç D, Külünk T, KarakasO. The effects of different desensitizing agents on the shear bond strength of adhesive resin cement to dentin. JEsthet Restor Dent 2011;23:380-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
StewardsonDA, CrispRJ, McHughS, LendenmannU, BurkeFJ. The effectiveness of Systemp.desensitizer in the treatment of dentine hypersensitivity. Prim Dent Care 2004;11:71-6.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
GangurdeLB, PawarMG, ShenoyVU, MargasahayamSV. Acomparative evaluation of the shear bond strength of three different fifth generation dentin bonding agents: An invitro study. JContemp Dent 2014;4:1-5.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Dentsply. Xeno V +. Available from: http://www.dentsplymea.com/products/restorative/bonding-agents/xeno-v-0.[Last cited on 2016May13].  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
JosephP, YadavC, SatheeshK, RahnaR. Comparative evaluation of the bonding efficacy of sixth, seventh and eighth generation bonding agents: An invitro study. Int Res J Pharm 2013;4:143-7.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
DundarA, YavuzT, OrucogluH, DaneshmehrL, YalcinM, SengunA. Evaluation of the permeability of five desensitizing agents using computerized fluid filtration. Niger J Clin Pract 2015;18:601-6.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
12.
AroraS, YadavS, YadavH, SharmaS. Acomparative evaluation of shear bond strengths of composite to dentin, using total etch and self etch dentin bonding agents–An invitro study. Indian J Dent Sci 2015;7:30-6.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
TayFR, GwinnettAJ, PangKM, WeiSH. Resin permeation into acid-conditioned, moist, and dry dentin: A paradigm using water-free adhesive primers. JDent Res 1996;75:1034-44.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
TayFR, GwinnettJA, WeiSH. Relation between water content in acetone/alcohol-based primer and interfacial ultrastructure. JDent 1998;26:147-56.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Ivoclar Vivadent Systemp. Available from: http://www.ivoclarvivadent.ru>document>Systemp.[Last cited on 2016May23].  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
RavikumarN, ShankarP, IndiraR. Shear bond strengths of two dentin bonding agents with two desensitizers: An invitro study. JConserv Dent 2011;14:247-51.  Back to cited text no. 16
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
17.
TayFR, GwinnettJA, WeiSH. Micromorphological spectrum from overdrying to overwetting acid-conditioned dentin in water-free acetone-based, single-bottle primer/adhesives. Dent Mater 1996;12:236-44.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
MargvelashviliM, BeloicaM, CarvalhoCA, PapacchiniF, CantoroA, GoracciC. Bonding potential of all-in-one adhesives to ground enamel. Int Dent SA 2014;11:64-9.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Voco FuturabondDC. Available from: http://www.voco.com/en/product/futurabond_dc/index.html.[Last cited on 2016May21].  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
NairM, PaulJ, KumarS, ChakravarthyY, KrishnaV, Shivaprasad. Comparative evaluation of the bonding efficacy of sixth and seventh generation bonding agents: An in-vitro study. JConserv Dent 2014;17:27-30.  Back to cited text no. 20
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  

Top
Correspondence Address:
Vijay Mathai
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sree Mookambika Institute of Dental Sciences, Kulasekaram, Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.209069

Rights and Permissions



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1458    
    Printed24    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded272    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal