Effect of caries infiltration technique and fluoride therapy on the bond strength of the demineralized enamel

Authors

  • Raffaela Di Iorio Jeronymo UNESP- Univ Estadual Paulista-Department of Restorative Dentistry-São José dos Campos- SP
  • Lucelia Lemes Gonçalves UNESP- Univ Estadual Paulista-Department of Restorative Dentistry-São José dos Campos- SP
  • Carlos Rocha Gomes Torres UNESP- Univ Estadual Paulista-Department of Restorative Dentistry-São José dos Campos- SP
  • Ana Paula Martins Gomes UNESP- Univ Estadual Paulista-Department of Restorative Dentistry-São José dos Campos- SP
  • Maria Filomena Rocha Lima Huhtala UNESP- Univ Estadual Paulista-Department of Restorative Dentistry-São José dos Campos- SP
  • Alessandra Bühler Borges UNESP- Univ Estadual Paulista-Department of Restorative Dentistry-São José dos Campos- SP
  • Sérgio Eduardo de Paiva Gonçalves UNESP- Univ Estadual Paulista-Department of Restorative Dentistry-São José dos Campos- SP

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14295/bds.2012.v15i3.828

Abstract

Different techniques are employed to control de caries progression, such as fluoride remineralization and resin infiltration (ICON®). However, the interference of these techniques on further adhesive procedures on the treated tissue is still controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the bond strength (BS) of the bovine enamel demineralized and treated with either fluoride or ICON®. Material and Methods: The tooth fragments were randomly divided into 4 groups: Group Sound samples (control); Group Demineralized samples (DS); Group Remineralized samples (NaF- 0.05% /8 weeks); Group ICON® samples. The samples were etched and next, a total etch bonding system was applied followed by resin composite. Then, they were submitted to microtensile test in a universal testing machine (10 Kg 1 mm/min). Results: Data were evaluated by ANOVA. There were statistically significant differences among groups (p = 0.28), with the following mean values (MPa): Group: Sound samples ((20,20 ± 2,97), Group: Demineralized Samples (21.99 ± 4.25), Group: Remineralized Samples (23.48 ± 4.03), Group: ICON® samples (22.10 ± 3,37). Conclusion: The treatments did not interfere in bond strength of the composite resin to enamel, providing values similar to those of the control group.

Downloads

Published

2012-12-18

Issue

Section

Clinical or Laboratorial Research Manuscript