Correspondence to: ]]>
Effect of carisolv and papacárie on the resin-dentin bond strength in sound and caries-affected primary molars
Doglas CecchinI; Ana Paula FarinaII; Franciele OrlandoIII; Eloisa Helena Corrêa BruscoIV; Bruno Carlini-JúniorV
IDDS, MS, Postgraduate Student, Endodontic Division, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Brazil
IIDDS, MS, Postgraduate Student, Prosthodontics Division, Department Prosthodontics and Periodontology, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Brazil
IIIDDS, Postgraduate Student, Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Passo Fundo, Brazil
IVDDS, MS, Full Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Passo Fundo, Brazil ]]>
VDDS, MS, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Passo Fundo, Brazil
ABSTRACT
AIM: This study evaluated the influence of different chemomechanical caries removal techniques on the bond strength of an adhesive system to caries-affected and healthy dentin.
METHODS: Thirty healthy teeth were randomly divided into three groups: Group 1 (control): no caries removal technique was applied; Group 2: chemomechanical technique using Carisolv®; and Group 3: chemomechanical technique using Papacárie®. Twenty caries-affected teeth were divided into two groups: Group 4: chemomechanical technique using Carisolv; and Group 5: chemomechanical technique using Papacárie. The teeth received the application of an etch-andrinse adhesive system, were restored with composite resin, and then sectioned to obtain 4 hourglassshaped slabs from each specimen, which were subjected to a microtensile bond strength test. Data were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and Tukey's test (a=0.05).
RESULTS:G1 (13.387 ± 6.1074), G2 (18.123 ± 3.2611) and G3 (12.781 ± 4.5652) presented statistically significant higher mean bond strength values than the other groups (p<0.05), but did not differ significantly from each other (p>0.05). G4 (6.228 ± 5.3435) and G5 (6.482 ± 3.2076) presented the lowest mean bond strength values and were statistically similar to each other (p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Neither of the chemomechanical caries removal methods interfered in the resin-dentin bond strength. However, lower tensile bond strength was found to caries-affected dentin.
Keywords: chemomechanical caries removal; microtensile bond strength; etch-and-rinse adhesive system.
Full text available only in PDF format.
References
1. Cehreli ZC, Altay N. A 3-year clinical evaluation of a polyacid modified resin composite in minimally-invasive oclusal cavities. J Dent. 2000; 28: 117-22. [ Links ]
2. Kidd EAM, Joyston-Bechal S, Beighton D. Microbiological validation of assessments of caries activity during preparation. Caries Res. 1993; 27: 402-8. [ Links ]
]]>3. Ranly DM, Garcia-Godoy F. Current and potential pulp therapies for primary and young permanent teeth. J Dent. 2000; 28: 153-61. [ Links ]
4. Kakaboura A, Masouras C, Staikou O, Vougiouklakis G. A comparative clinical study on the Carisolv caries removal method. Quintessence Int. 2003; 34: 269-71. [ Links ]
5. Kavvadia K, Karagianni V, Polychronopoulou A, Papagiannouli L. Primary teeth caries removal using the Carisolv chemomechanical method: a clinical trial. Pediatr Dent. 2004; 26: 23-8. [ Links ]
6. Fure S, Lingström P, Birkhed D. Evaluation of Carisolv for the chemomechanical removal of primary root caries in vivo. Caries Res. 2000; 34: 275-80. [ Links ]
7. Morrow LA, Hassall DC, Watts DC, Wilson NH. A chemo-mechanical method for caries removel. Dent Update. 2000; 27: 398-401. [ Links ]
]]>8. Munshi AK, Hegde AM, Shetty PK. Clinical evaluation of CarisolvTM in the chemo-mechanical removal of carious dentin. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2001; 26: 49-54. [ Links ]
9. Splieth C, Rosin M, Gellissen B. Determination of residual dentine caries after conventional mechanical and chemomechanical caries removal with Carisolv. Clin Oral Invest. 2001; 5: 250-3. [ Links ]
10. Bussadori S, Castro L, Galvao A. Papain gel: a new chemomechanical caries removal agent. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2005; 30: 115-9. [ Links ]
11. Piva E, Ogliari FA, Moraes RR, Corá F, Henn S, Correr-Sobrinho L. Papain-based gel for biochemical caries removal: influence on microtensile bond strength to dentin. Braz Oral Res. 2008; 22: 364-70. [ Links ]
12. Wennerberg A, Sawase T, Kultje C. The influence of Carisolv on enamel and dentine surface topography. Eur J Oral Sci. 1999; 107: 297-306. [ Links ]
]]>13. Çehreli ZC, Yazici AR, Akca T, Özgünaltay G. A morphological and microtensile bond strength evaluation of a single-bottle adhesive to caries-affected human dentine after four different caries removal techniques. J Dent. 2003; 31: 429-35. [ Links ]
14. Silva NRFA, Calamia CS, Harsono M, Carvalho RM, Pegoraro LF, Fernandes CAO, Vieira ACB, Thompson VP. Bond angle effects on microtensile bonds: Laboratory and FEA comparison. Dent Mater. 2006; 22: 314-24. [ Links ]
15. Rafique S, Fiske J, Banerjee A. Clinical trial of an air-abrasion/ chemomechanical operative procedure for the restorative treatment of dental patients. Caries Res. 2003; 37: 360-4. [ Links ]
16. Banerjee A, Kidd EA, Watson TF. Scanning electron microscopic observations of human dentine after mechanical caries excavation. J Dent. 2000; 28: 179-86. [ Links ]
17. Hosoya Y, Kawashita Y, Marshall GW Jr, Goto G. Influence of Carisolv™ for resin adhesion to sound human primary dentin and young permanent dentin. J Dent. 2001; 29: 163-71.
18. Bengtson AL, Guedes-Pinto AC, Turbíno ML, Mathías RC, Bengtson NG. Força adesiva de um sistema de resina composta à dentina. Comparação entre molares decíduos esfoliados fisiologicamente e com retenção prolongada. RGO. 2002; 50: 93-6. [ Links ]
19. Bengtson AL, Guedes-Pinto AC, Turbíno ML, Bengtson NG, Bengtson CRG. Contribuição na padronização de dentina de dentes decíduos para os ensaios de adesividade de materiais resinosos. Pesq Bras Odontoped Clin Integr. 2003; 3: 21-5. [ Links ]
20. Dammaschke T, Stratmann U, Mokrys K, Kaup M, Ott KHR. Reaction of sound and demineralised dentine to Carisolv in vivo and in vitro. J Dent. 2002; 30: 59-65. [ Links ]
21. Burrow MF, Bokas J, Tanumiharja M, Tyas MJ. Microtensile bond strengths to caries-affected dentine treated with Carisolv. Aust Dent J. 2003; 48: 110-4. [ Links ]
22. Ericson D, Zimmerman M, Raber H, Götrick B, Bornstein R, Thorell J. Clinical evaluation of efficacy and safety of a new method for chemo-mechanical removal of caries. A multi-centre study. Caries Res. 1999; 33: 171-7. [ Links ]
23. Haak R, Wicht MJ, Noack MJ. Does chemomechanical caries removal affect dentine adhesion? Eur J Oral Sci. 2000; 108: 449-55. [ Links ]
24. Hossain M, Nakamura Y, Tamaki Y, Yamada Y, Jayawardena JÁ, Matsumoto K. Dentinal composition and Knoop Hardness measurements of cavity floor following carious dentin removal with Carisolv. Oper Dent. 2003; 28: 346-51. [ Links ]
25. Hosoya Y, Shinkawa H, Marshall GW. Influence of Carisolv on resin adhesion for two different adhesive systems to sound human primary dentin and young permanent dentin. J Dent. 2005; 33: 283-91. [ Links ]
26. Flindt ML. Allergy to alpha-amylase and papain. Lancet. 1979; 1: 1407-8. [ Links ]
27. Maragakis GM, Hahn P, Hellyig E. Clinical evaluation of chemomechanical caries removal in primary molars and its acceptance by patients. Caries Res. 2001; 35: 205-10. [ Links ]
28. Lopes MC, Mascarini RC, da Silva BM, Flório FM, Basting RT. Effect of a papain-based gel for chemomechanical caries removal on dentin shear bond strength. J Dent Child (Chic). 2007; 74: 93-7. [ Links ]
29. Yoshiyama M, Tay FR, Doi J, Nishitani Y, Yamada T, Itou K, Carvalho RM, Nakajima M & Pashley DH. Bonding of self-etch and total-etch adhesives to carious dentin. J Dent Res. 2002; 81: 556-60. [ Links ]
30. Hosoya Y, Marshall SJ, Watanabe LG, Marshall GW. Microhardness of carious deciduous dentin. Oper Dent. 2000; 25: 81-9. [ Links ]
31. Marshall GW Jr, Chang YJ, Gansky SA, Marshall SJ. Demineralization of caries-affected transparent dentin by citric acid: an atomic force microscopy study. Dent Mater. 2001; 17: 45-52. [ Links ]
Doglas Cecchin
Received for publication: October 21, 2009
Accepted: March 29, 2010