Influence of ultrasound and diamond burs treatments on microtensile bond strength

Abstract

Objective: To compare surface treatments with CVDentUS ® ultrasound tips (UT) and KGSorensen ® diamond burs (DB) on etched (e) and non-etched (n/e) dentin. The microtensile bond strength (μTBS) was measured and fractography was assessed by scanning electron microscope (SEM). Materials and Methods: Sixteen molars were divided into four groups of four teeth each according to treatment (DB-n/e; DB-e; UT-n/e; UT-e). The teeth were restored, sectioned into samples for μTBS (n=40) and tested on a EMIC DL-2000 universal machine (0.5 mm/min) and analyzed by SEM for fracture classification. Statistical Analysis: For analysis of the data on μTBS, the two-way ANOVA, using treatment and acid etching as fixed factor, and the Tukey test were used (α=0.05). To failures classification in cohesive in dentin (CD); cohesive in composite resin (CC); cohesive interfacial on base or top of hybrid layer (CBT); cohesive in adhesive (CA); mixed (M); interfacial on smear layer (S) the Fisher′s exact test (α=0.05) was performed. Results: The mean values of μTBS (in MPa) in the different groups were as follows: UT-e: 45.31±8.16; DB-e: 34.04±9.29; UT-n/e: 15.17±3.71; and DB-n/e: 9.86±3.80. On analysis of the SEM micrographs, the DB-n/e group showed total obstruction of dentinal tubules; the UT-n/e group showed partial desobstruction of dentinal tubules and irregular surface; the DB-e group showed complete desobstruction of dentinal tubules; and the UT-e group showed complete desobstruction of dentinal tubules and irregular surface. Conclusion: The combination of ultrasound treatment and acid etching provides high values of μTBS. An association exists between CA/CC failures and the UT method, CBT failure and the DB method, CBT/CC failures and etching, S failure and non-etching.

Keywords

• Dentin
• diamond bur
• microtensile bond strength
• ultrasound