Show simple item record

Dentin Bonding: SEM Comparison of the Resin-Dentin Interface in Primary and Permanent Teeth

dc.contributor.authorNor, J. E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFeigal, R. J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorDennison, Joseph B.en_US
dc.contributor.authorEdwards, C. A.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-04-13T19:04:03Z
dc.date.available2010-04-13T19:04:03Z
dc.date.issued1996en_US
dc.identifier.citationNor, J.E.; Feigal, R.J.; Dennison, J.B.; Edwards, C.A. (1996). "Dentin Bonding: SEM Comparison of the Resin-Dentin Interface in Primary and Permanent Teeth." Journal of Dental Research 6(75): 1396-1403. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/67017>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0022-0345en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/67017
dc.description.abstractPrevious studies have suggested minor differences between primary and permanent teeth in terms of dentin composition and morphology. Other reports indicated lower bond strengths of resin composites to dentin of primary teeth compared with dentin of permanent teeth; however, no information is available regarding differences in the micromorphology of the resin-dentin interface that may explain these lower bond strengths. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to compare primary and permanent teeth in terms of the thickness of the hybrid layer developed with two bonding systems. Our hypothesis was that bonding differences previously reported between primary and permanent dentin would be reflected in hybrid layer differences observable in SEM analyses. Twenty human extracted and non-carious teeth were divided into 4 groups: 5 primary and 5 permanent teeth restored with All-Bond 2/Bisfil P system; and 5 primary and 5 permanent teeth restored with Scotchbond Multi-Purpose/ZlOO. The sample area available on each tooth was divided for the two dentin conditioning times (7 and 15 sec). Measurements of hybrid layer thickness were performed by means of SEM at xl3,000. The results of this study indicated that the hybrid layer produced is significantly thicker in primary than in permanent teeth (p = 0.0001), suggesting that primary tooth dentin is more reactive to acid conditioning. No difference was observed in the hybrid layers produced by the two adhesive systems (p = 0.7920). The increased thickness of the hybrid layer in primary teeth (25 to 30%) and the subsequent lack of complete penetration of adhesive resin into previously demineralized dentin may contribute to the lower bond strengths to primary dentin reported in the literature. If a narrower hybrid layer more uniformly infused with resin is the goal of dentin bonding, it is concluded that a differentiated protocol for bonding to primary dentin (with shorter time for dentin conditioning) can be used as a means to reproduce the hybrid layer thickness seen in permanent teeth.en_US
dc.format.extent3108 bytes
dc.format.extent1625032 bytes
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.publisherSAGE Publicationsen_US
dc.subject.otherDentin Bonding Agentsen_US
dc.subject.otherDentinen_US
dc.subject.otherAdhesionen_US
dc.subject.otherInterfacesen_US
dc.subject.otherPrimary Teethen_US
dc.titleDentin Bonding: SEM Comparison of the Resin-Dentin Interface in Primary and Permanent Teethen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelDentistryen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Michigan, 1011 N. University, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Michigan, 1011 N. University, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Cariology and Operative Dentistry, University of Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDental Microanalysis Facility, University of Michiganen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/67017/2/10.1177_00220345960750061101.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/00220345960750061101en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBordin-Aykroyd S., Sefton J., Davies EH (1992). In vitro bond strengths of three current dentin adhesives to primary and permanent teeth. Dent Mater 8:74-78.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCox CF (1988). Histology of dentin. In: Oral development and histology. Avery JA, editor, Philadelphia: B.C. Decker, pp. 180-190.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDuke ES, Lindemuth J. (1991). Variability of clinical dentin substrates. Am J Dent 4:241-246.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceElkins CJ, Mc Court JW (1993). Bond strength of dentin adhesives in primary teeth. Quint Int 24:271-273.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceErickson RL (1992). Surface interactions of dentin adhesive materials. Oper Dent (Suppl 5):81-94.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFagan TR, Crall JJ, Jensen ME, Clialkley Y., Clarkson B. (1986). A comparison of two dentin bonding agents in primary and permanent teeth. Pediatr Dent 8:144-146.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGwinnett AJ (1984). Smear layer Morphological considerations. Oper Dent (Suppl 3):2-12.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGwinnett AJ (1992). Moist versus dry dentin: Its effect on shear bond strength. Am J Dent 5:127-129.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHirayama A. (1990). Experimental analytical electron microscopic studies on the quantitative analysis of elemental concentrations in biological thin specimens and its application to dental science. Shikwa Gahuko 90:1019-1036.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJohnsen DC (1988). Comparison of primary and permanent teeth. In: Oral development and histology. Avery JA, editor. Philadelphia: B.C. Decker, pp. 180-190.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKanca J. III (1992). Improving bond strength through acid etching of dentin and bonding to wet dentin surfaces. J Am Dent Assoc 123:35-43.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKoutsi V., Noonan RG, Horner JA, Simpson MD, Matthews WG, Pashley DH (1994). The effect of dentin depth on the permeability and ultrastructure of primary molars. Pediatr Dent 16:29-35.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMitchem JC, Gronas DG (1986). Effects of time after extraction and depth of dentin on resin dentin adhesives. J Am Dent Assoc 113:285-287.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMitchem JC, Terkla LG, Gronas DG (1988). Bonding of resin dentin adhesives under simulated physiological conditions. Dent Mater 4:351-353.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMixson JM, Richards ND, Mitchell RJ (1993). Effects of dentin age and bonding on microgap formation. Am J Dent 6:72-76.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNakabayashi N. (1992). Adhesive bonding with 4-META. Oper Dent (Suppl 5):125-130.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNakajima M., Takada T., Tagami J., Hosoda H. (1991). A study on bonding to dentin in various teeth and sites. Jpn J Conserv Dent 34:266-274.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePashley DH (1989). Dentin: a dynamic substrate-a review. Scanning Microsc 3:161-176.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePashley DH (1991a). Dentin bonding: an overview of the substrate with respect to adhesive material. J Esthet Dent 3:46-50.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePashley DH (1991b). In vitro simulations of in vivo bonding conditions. Am J Dent 4:237-240.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePashley DH, Horner JA, Brewer PD (1992). Interactions of conditioners on the dentin surface. Oper Dent (Suppl 5):137-150.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePashley EL, Tao L., Matthews WG, Pashley DH (1993). Bond strengths to superficial, intermediate and deep dentin in vivo with four dentin bonding systems. Dent Mater 9:19-22.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePerdigao J., Swift EJ Jr, Cloe BC (1993). Effects of etchants, surface moisture, and resin composite on dentin bond strengths. Am J Dent 6:61-64.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePerdigao J., Swift EJ Jr, Denehy GE, Wefel JS, Donly KJ (1994). In vitro bond strengths and SEM evaluation of dentin bonding systems to different dentin substrates. J Dent Res 73:44-55.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePrati C., Pashley DH, Montanari G. (1991). Hydrostatic intrapulpal pressure and bond strength of bonding systems. Dent Mater 7:54-58.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSalama FS, Tao L. (1991). Comparison of Gluma bond strength to primary vs. permanent teeth. Pediatr Dent 13:163-166.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSano H., Shono T., Takatsu T., Hosoda H. (1994). Microporous dentin zone beneath resin-impregnated layer. Oper Dent 19:59-64.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSuzuki T., Finger WJ (1988). Dentin adhesives: site of dentin vs. bonding of resin composites. Dent Mater 4:379-384.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTam LE, Pilliar RM (1994). Effects of dentin surface treatments on the fracture toughness and tensile bond strength of a dentin-composite adhesive interface. J Dent Res 73:1530-1538.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTao L., Pashley DH (1988). Shear bond strengths to dentin: effects of surface treatments, depth and position. Dent Mater 4:371-378.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTen Cate AR (1989). Dentin-pulp complex. In: Oral histology: Development, structure and function. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, pp. 157-196.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTriolo PT Jr, Swift EJ Jr (1992). Shear bond strengths of ten dentin adhesive systems. Dent Mater 8:370-374.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVan Hassel HJ (1971). Physiology of the human dental pulp. Oral Surg 32:126-134.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVan Meerbeek B., Inokoshi S., Braem M., Lambrechts P., Vanherle G. (1992). Morphological aspects of the resin-dentin interdiffusion zone with different dentin adhesive systems. J Dent Res 71:1530-1540.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVan Meerbeek B., Dhem A., Goret-Nicaise M., Braem M., Lambrechts P., Vanherle G. (1993). Comparative SEM and TEM examination of the ultrastructure of the resin-dentin interdiffusion zone. J Dent Res 72:495-501.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWang T., Nakabayashi N. (1991). Effect of 2-(methacryloxy) ethyl phenyl hydrogen phosphate on adhesion to dentin. J Dent Res 70:59-66.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.