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