Special Issue "Adhesion to Enamel and Dentin"

A special issue of Dentistry Journal (ISSN 2304-6767). This special issue belongs to the section "Dental Materials".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 December 2018).

Special Issue Editor

Guest Editor
Dr. Michelle Alexandra Chinelatti

Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo (FORP-USP), Ribeirão Preto, Brazil
Website | E-Mail
Interests: cariology; conservative restoration; minimal invasive dentistry; preventive dentistry; restorative dentistry; adhesive dentistry

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

In dentistry, the term adhesion is often used to define the process that establishes the micromechanical union between the materials and dental substrates. A large number of clinical dental procedures are intermediated by adhesive systems. The practioner must be able, not only to use materials available on the market, but also understand the mechanism of action of each of them, so that this knowledge is able to guide the choice of the adhesive system for each particular clinical case.

Effective and lasting adhesive interfaces are fully related to the interruption of the repetitive restorative cycle, in which restorations are periodically replaced by more complex and larger ones. Thus, the choice of the adhesive system must be based in deep knowledge of the material, as well as the characteristics of the dental tissues and their interaction with adhesive systems.

This Special Issue is interested in all aspects of adhesive systems, understanding their mechanisms of action and their interactions with the dental substrate. In addition, strategies to reduce degradation of the adhesive interface are very welcome with the objective of increasing the durability of adhesive interfaces.

Dr. Michelle Alexandra Chinelatti
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All papers will be peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Dentistry Journal is an international peer-reviewed open access quarterly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1000 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • dentin bonding agents
  • dental adhesives
  • enamel
  • dentin
  • phosphoric acid
  • secondary caries
  • adhesive interface
  • biodegradation
  • MMP’s
  • self-etch adhesives
  • etch-and-rinse adhesives
  • two-step selfetch adhesives
  • one-step self-etch adhesives
  • bond strength
  • conservative restoration
  • adhesion to carious tissue
  • clinical performance
  • bonding effectiveness
  • bond durability
  • dentin conditioner
  • adhesive interface morphology
  • dentin permeability
  • hybrid layer

Published Papers (2 papers)

View options order results:
result details:
Displaying articles 1-2
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Open AccessArticle
Effect of Methods of Biosilicate Microparticle Application on Dentin Adhesion
Dent. J. 2019, 7(2), 35; https://doi.org/10.3390/dj7020035
Received: 4 February 2019 / Revised: 20 March 2019 / Accepted: 21 March 2019 / Published: 1 April 2019
PDF Full-text (3522 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Restorative procedures associated with bioglasses have shown to be a strategy to satisfy the contemporary concept of minimally invasive dentistry. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate bond strength to dentin treated by two different methods of biosilicate microparticle application. Dentin [...] Read more.
Restorative procedures associated with bioglasses have shown to be a strategy to satisfy the contemporary concept of minimally invasive dentistry. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate bond strength to dentin treated by two different methods of biosilicate microparticle application. Dentin surfaces from 30 sound human molars were exposed and randomly assigned into three groups (n = 10) according to the surface treatment: (1) blasting with biosilicate microparticles (distance = 1 cm/pressure = 5 bar/time = 1 min); (2) 10% biosilicate microparticles paste; and (3) control (no treatment). After, dentin surfaces were restored with self-etch adhesive (Adper Easy Bond) and nanofilled composite (Filtek Z350). Specimens were sectioned perpendicularly to the adhesive interface to obtain sticks (cross-section area = 1 mm2), which were submitted to microtensile test (0.5 mm/min; 50 kgf). Data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α = 5%). Dentin/adhesive interfaces were morphologically analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data analysis showed that biosilicate-treated groups reached similar results (p > 0.05) and both of them demonstrated higher values (p < 0.05) than control group. SEM micrographs revealed hybridization with clear resin tags and no separation between resin-dentin adhesive interfaces. Within the limitations of this study, surface treatment with biosilicate positively influenced the adhesion to dentin and does not alter the morphology of the adhesive interface. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Adhesion to Enamel and Dentin)
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
An In-Vitro Analysis of Microleakage of Self-Adhesive Fissure Sealant vs. Conventional and GIC Fissure Sealants
Dent. J. 2019, 7(2), 32; https://doi.org/10.3390/dj7020032
Received: 28 January 2019 / Revised: 10 March 2019 / Accepted: 15 March 2019 / Published: 28 March 2019
PDF Full-text (1028 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Background: The microleakage of a self-adhesive composite, a glass ionomer fissure sealant and a conventional resin-based fissure sealant were compared. Materials and methods: Fifty intact human molars with well-delineated pits and fissures were used and divided into 5 groups (n = 10). [...] Read more.
Background: The microleakage of a self-adhesive composite, a glass ionomer fissure sealant and a conventional resin-based fissure sealant were compared. Materials and methods: Fifty intact human molars with well-delineated pits and fissures were used and divided into 5 groups (n = 10). Group 1 specimens were etched (37% phosphoric acid) and sealed with conventional resin-based sealant (Helioseal F, Ivoclar Vivadent). Both Group 2 and 3 specimens were sealed with self-adhesive composite (Constic, DMG), but in Group 3, specimens were also etched (37% phosphoric acid). In Groups 4 and 5, specimens were sealed with a GIC sealant (Equia Fill, GC Company), but Group 5 was also exposed to thermo-light curing (TLC) with a LED polymerization unit (60 s). Subsequently, specimens were thermocycled (1800 cycles, dwelling time of 10 s), immersed in 50% silver nitrate solution (45 min), placed in a photo-developing solution (Kodak) under a lamp (120 W, 6 h), and cut into 3–4 slices. Marginal leakage (dye penetration depth) was evaluated under a light microscope and the worst score of each specimen was recorded (0–3). Results: Constic showed the lowest microleakage (Constic: 80% scored 0 or 1), followed by Helioseal (30% scored 0 or 1) (p = 0.037). Microleakage in groups sealed with Constic (with and without etching) were not different (p = 0.473). The quality of seal deteriorated after etching when Constic was used. However, TLC improved the seal when GIC sealant was used (p = 0.016) and also in comparison to Helioseal (p = 0.004). The TLC GIC sealant (Equia Fill, 90% scored 0 or 1) performed well, similar to self-adhesive composite (Constic, 80% scored 0 or 1) (p = 0.206). Conclusion: The present findings suggest that the self-adhesive sealant and the GIC sealant that were exposed to TLC had comparable sealing ability and superior sealing characteristics compared to the conventional resin-based sealant. A long-term clinical trial is needed to assess the intra-oral performance. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Adhesion to Enamel and Dentin)
Figures

Figure 1

Dent. J. EISSN 2304-6767 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top