This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Nor, J.E. Articles by Edwards, C.A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Nor, J.E. Articles by Edwards, C.A. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Dentin Bonding: SEM Comparison of the Resin-Dentin Interface in Primary and Permanent Teeth

Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Michigan, 1011 N. University, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

R.J. Feigal

Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Michigan, 1011 N. University, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

J.B. Dennison

Department of Cariology and Operative Dentistry, University of Michigan

C.A. Edwards

Dental Microanalysis Facility, University of Michigan

Previous studies have suggested minor differences between primary and permanent teeth in terms of dentin composition and morphology. Other reports indicated lower bond strengths of resin composites to dentin of primary teeth compared with dentin of permanent teeth; however, no information is available regarding differences in the micromorphology of the resin-dentin interface that may explain these lower bond strengths. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to compare primary and permanent teeth in terms of the thickness of the hybrid layer developed with two bonding systems. Our hypothesis was that bonding differences previously reported between primary and permanent dentin would be reflected in hybrid layer differences observable in SEM analyses. Twenty human extracted and non-carious teeth were divided into 4 groups: 5 primary and 5 permanent teeth restored with All-Bond 2/Bisfil P system; and 5 primary and 5 permanent teeth restored with Scotchbond Multi-Purpose/ZlOO. The sample area available on each tooth was divided for the two dentin conditioning times (7 and 15 sec). Measurements of hybrid layer thickness were performed by means of SEM at xl3,000. The results of this study indicated that the hybrid layer produced is significantly thicker in primary than in permanent teeth (p = 0.0001), suggesting that primary tooth dentin is more reactive to acid conditioning. No difference was observed in the hybrid layers produced by the two adhesive systems (p = 0.7920). The increased thickness of the hybrid layer in primary teeth (25 to 30%) and the subsequent lack of complete penetration of adhesive resin into previously demineralized dentin may contribute to the lower bond strengths to primary dentin reported in the literature. If a narrower hybrid layer more uniformly infused with resin is the goal of dentin bonding, it is concluded that a differentiated protocol for bonding to primary dentin (with shorter time for dentin conditioning) can be used as a means to reproduce the hybrid layer thickness seen in permanent teeth.

Key Words: dentin bonding agents • dentin • adhesion • interfaces • primary teeth

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 75, No. 6, 1396-1403 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/00220345960750061101


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. Pioch, S. Stotz, H.J. Staehle, and H. Duschner Applications of Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy to Dental Bonding Advances in Dental Research, November 1, 1997; 11(4): 453 - 461. [Abstract] [PDF]