Advancing Adhesive Strategies for Endodontically Treated Teeth-Part II: Dentin Sealing Before Irrigation Increases Long-Term Microtensile Bond Strength to Coronal Dentin.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Joana A Marques, Rui I Falacho, Gabriela Almeida, Francisco Caramelo, João Miguel Santos, João Rocha, Markus B Blatz, João Carlos Ramos, Paulo J Palma
{"title":"Advancing Adhesive Strategies for Endodontically Treated Teeth-Part II: Dentin Sealing Before Irrigation Increases Long-Term Microtensile Bond Strength to Coronal Dentin.","authors":"Joana A Marques, Rui I Falacho, Gabriela Almeida, Francisco Caramelo, João Miguel Santos, João Rocha, Markus B Blatz, João Carlos Ramos, Paulo J Palma","doi":"10.1111/jerd.13467","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the long-term microtensile bond strength (μTBS) to coronal dentin using pre-endodontic dentin sealing (PEDS) and post-endodontic adhesion (PEA) techniques under various endodontic irrigation protocols.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Ten study groups (n = 10) were established based on the timing of adhesive application (PEDS versus PEA) and irrigation protocol: distilled water (control), 3% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 3% NaOCl followed by 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), 3% NaOCl followed by 17% EDTA and 2% chlorhexidine, and a mixture of 3% NaOCl and 9% etidronic acid (HEDP). Specimens underwent μTBS testing after a six-month microspecimen aging period. Fracture patterns were analyzed, and adhesive interfaces were assessed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Statistical analysis employed a mixed linear regression model with a 5% significance level.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PEDS consistently preserved high bond strength across all irrigation protocols (57.4-59.5 MPa), while PEA groups treated with endodontic irrigants resulted in significantly lower values (33.3-40.8 MPa; p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed within the PEDS groups (p > 0.05). SEM analysis revealed consistent hybrid layers in PEDS and PEA/Control groups, while PEA groups treated with endodontic irrigation solutions showed significant resin-dentin interface variations and interfacial gaps.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The PEDS technique preserved high and consistent μTBS regardless of the irrigation protocol, whereas endodontically irrigated PEA groups exhibited significantly reduced bond strength. PEDS offers a predictable approach to optimizing adhesive performance in endodontic-restorative treatments.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Integrating PEDS into routine endodontic-restorative workflow is recommended to enhance long-term bond strength to coronal dentin. The PEDS technique ensures consistent adhesive performance regardless of the endodontic irrigation protocol, enhancing restorative predictability and treatment success while preserving tooth structure.</p>","PeriodicalId":15988,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.13467","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the long-term microtensile bond strength (μTBS) to coronal dentin using pre-endodontic dentin sealing (PEDS) and post-endodontic adhesion (PEA) techniques under various endodontic irrigation protocols.

Materials and methods: Ten study groups (n = 10) were established based on the timing of adhesive application (PEDS versus PEA) and irrigation protocol: distilled water (control), 3% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 3% NaOCl followed by 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), 3% NaOCl followed by 17% EDTA and 2% chlorhexidine, and a mixture of 3% NaOCl and 9% etidronic acid (HEDP). Specimens underwent μTBS testing after a six-month microspecimen aging period. Fracture patterns were analyzed, and adhesive interfaces were assessed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Statistical analysis employed a mixed linear regression model with a 5% significance level.

Results: PEDS consistently preserved high bond strength across all irrigation protocols (57.4-59.5 MPa), while PEA groups treated with endodontic irrigants resulted in significantly lower values (33.3-40.8 MPa; p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed within the PEDS groups (p > 0.05). SEM analysis revealed consistent hybrid layers in PEDS and PEA/Control groups, while PEA groups treated with endodontic irrigation solutions showed significant resin-dentin interface variations and interfacial gaps.

Conclusions: The PEDS technique preserved high and consistent μTBS regardless of the irrigation protocol, whereas endodontically irrigated PEA groups exhibited significantly reduced bond strength. PEDS offers a predictable approach to optimizing adhesive performance in endodontic-restorative treatments.

Clinical significance: Integrating PEDS into routine endodontic-restorative workflow is recommended to enhance long-term bond strength to coronal dentin. The PEDS technique ensures consistent adhesive performance regardless of the endodontic irrigation protocol, enhancing restorative predictability and treatment success while preserving tooth structure.

牙髓治疗后牙齿的黏附策略:灌洗前的牙本质密封可增加冠状牙本质的长期微拉伸黏附强度。
目的:比较不同根管灌洗方案下牙本质密封(PEDS)和牙本质粘附(PEA)技术与冠状牙本质的长期微拉伸结合强度(μTBS)。材料和方法:根据粘接时间(PEDS与PEA)和灌洗方案,建立10个研究组(n = 10):蒸馏水(对照)、3%次氯酸钠(NaOCl)、3% NaOCl加17%乙二胺四乙酸(EDTA)、3% NaOCl加17% EDTA和2%氯己定、3% NaOCl加9%地替膦酸(HEDP)的混合物。微标本老化6个月后进行μTBS测试。分析了断裂模式,并用扫描电子显微镜(SEM)对粘附界面进行了评估。统计分析采用混合线性回归模型,显著性水平为5%。结果:在所有灌洗方案中,PEDS始终保持较高的结合强度(57.4-59.5 MPa),而使用根管灌洗剂处理的PEA组的结合强度显著降低(33.3-40.8 MPa;p 0.05)。扫描电镜分析显示,PEDS组和PEA/Control组具有一致的杂交层,而经根管灌洗液处理的PEA组树脂-牙本质界面出现明显变化和界面间隙。结论:无论灌洗方式如何,PEDS技术均能保持较高且一致的μTBS,而根管内灌洗PEA组的结合强度明显降低。PEDS提供了一种可预测的方法来优化牙髓修复治疗中的粘接剂性能。临床意义:建议将PEDS纳入常规的牙髓修复工作流程,以增强与冠状牙本质的长期结合强度。无论根管灌洗方案如何,PEDS技术都能确保一致的粘接性能,在保留牙齿结构的同时提高修复的可预测性和治疗的成功率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
124
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry (JERD) is the longest standing peer-reviewed journal devoted solely to advancing the knowledge and practice of esthetic dentistry. Its goal is to provide the very latest evidence-based information in the realm of contemporary interdisciplinary esthetic dentistry through high quality clinical papers, sound research reports and educational features. The range of topics covered in the journal includes: - Interdisciplinary esthetic concepts - Implants - Conservative adhesive restorations - Tooth Whitening - Prosthodontic materials and techniques - Dental materials - Orthodontic, periodontal and endodontic esthetics - Esthetics related research - Innovations in esthetics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信