journal article·2024-09-04Open access

Stability of the Dentin-Bonded Interface Using Self-Etching Adhesive Containing Diacrylamide after Bacterial Challenge

Fernanda M. Tsuzuki, Matthew G. Logan, Steven H. Lewis, Lourenço Correr-Sobrinho, Carmem S. Pfeifer

ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces· Volume 16· Issue 35

Abstract

Purpose/Aim: Acrylamides are hydrolytically stable at pH lower than 2, and were shown to preserve bonded interface integrity with two-step, total etch adhesives. The objective of this study was to leverage those two characteristics in self-etching primers containing the acidic monomer 10-MDP and test the microtensile bond strength before and after incubation with S. mutans incubation. Materials and Methods: Acidic primers (10 wt % 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate─10-MDP; 45 wt % N, N -diethyl-1,3-bis(acrylamido)propane─DEBAAP, or 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate─HEMA; 45 wt %, glycerol–dimethacrylate─GDMA) and adhesives (DEBAAP or HEMA/10-MDP/UDMA 45/10/45 wt %) were made polymerizable by the addition of 0.2 wt % camphorquinone, 0.8 wt % ethyl-4-dimethylaminobenzoate, 0.4 wt % diphenyliodonium hexafluorophosphate, and 0.1 wt % butylhydroxytoluene. Nonsolvated materials were characterized for flexural strength (FS), modulus (E), toughness, water sorption/solubility (WS/SL), contact angle, and vinyl conversion (DC). Viscosity was evaluated after adding 20 and 40 vol % ethanol to the primer and adhesive, respectively. The experimental materials or Clearfil SE Bond (CC─commercial control) were used to bond a commercial composite (Filtek Supreme) to the flat surface of human dentin. Microtensile bond strength (MTBS) was tested in 1 mm 2 sticks for the 5 primer/bond combinations: CC (Clearfil Bond Primer and Bond), HH (HEMA/HEMA), DD (DEBAAP/DEBAAP), HD (HEMA/DEBAAP), and DH (DEBAAP/HEMA). Prior to testing, sticks were stored in water or biofilm-inducing culture medium with S. mutans for 1 week. Confocal images and FTIR–ATR evaluation evaluated the hybrid layer of the adhesives. Results were analyzed using Student’s t -test (WS, SL, DC, contact angle, FS, E, toughness), one-way ANOVA/Tukey’s test for viscosity, and two-way ANOVA/Tukey’s test for MTBS (95%). Results: HEMA-based materials had lower contact angle ( p = 0.004), higher WS ( p < 0.001), and similar SL values compared to DEBAAP ( p = 0.126). FS ( p = 0.171) and E ( p = 0.065) dry values were similar, but after one week of water storage, FS/E dropped more significantly for HEMA materials. Dry and wet toughness was greater for DEBAAP ( p < 0.001), but it also had the greatest drop (46%). Clearfil bonds had the highest viscosity, followed by DEBAAP and HEMA, respectively ( p = 0.002). For the primers, HEMA had the lowest viscosity ( p = 0.003). As far as MTBS, all groups tested in water were statistically different when compared with HH ( p < 0.001). After storage in biofilm, DH had the highest MTBS value, being statistically different from HH ( p = 0.002), CC ( p = 0.015), and DD ( p = 0.027). Conclusions: The addition of a diacrylamide and its association with HEMA in self-etching adhesive systems provided greater bonding stability after bacterial challenge.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Dental Erosion and Treatment · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Biomaterial and Biomedical Sciences Division, School of Dentistry, Oregon Health & Science University, 2730 S Moody Ave, Portland, Oregon 97201, United States

Dental Materials, Piracicaba School of Dentistry, University of Campinas, Av. Limeira, 901, Piracicaba, SP 13414-903, Brazil

Funding

National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research · Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient?fico e Tecnol?gico

References (35)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1007/s00784-020-03268-710.1007/s00784-020-03268-7 ↗
2. 10.1128/microbiolspec.GPP3-0051-201810.1128/microbiolspec.GPP3-0051-2018 ↗
3. 10.1177/0022034522114567310.1177/00220345221145673 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.dental.2021.04.00710.1016/j.dental.2021.04.007 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.08.02610.1016/j.actbio.2020.08.026 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.dental.2019.02.01210.1016/j.dental.2019.02.012 ↗
7. 10.11138/ads/2017.8.1.00110.11138/ads/2017.8.1.001 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.02310.1016/j.dental.2010.10.023 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.dental.2016.01.00510.1016/j.dental.2016.01.005 ↗
10. 10.1016/S0109-5641(00)00062-210.1016/S0109-5641(00)00062-2 ↗
11. 10.1099/mic.0.048314-010.1099/mic.0.048314-0 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.dental.2015.01.01710.1016/j.dental.2015.01.017 ↗
13. 10.1177/0022034521106173610.1177/00220345211061736 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.dental.2015.03.01110.1016/j.dental.2015.03.011 ↗
15. 10.1002/jbm.a.3224910.1002/jbm.a.32249 ↗
16. 10.1117/1.191484410.1117/1.1914844 ↗
17. 10.1117/1.JBO.17.6.06500210.1117/1.JBO.17.6.065002 ↗
18. 10.1016/S0109-5641(98)00003-710.1016/S0109-5641(98)00003-7 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.dental.2013.07.01610.1016/j.dental.2013.07.016 ↗
20. 10.1177/0022034500079003040110.1177/00220345000790030401 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.dental.2018.08.29610.1016/j.dental.2018.08.296 ↗
22. 10.1002/jbm.1036410.1002/jbm.10364 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.04.05210.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.04.052 ↗
24. Salz U. · J. Adhes Dent. · 2005 · 7 · 107
25. 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.04.00810.1016/j.jdent.2011.04.008 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.dental.2020.04.02310.1016/j.dental.2020.04.023 ↗
27. 10.1021/ma951073j10.1021/ma951073j ↗
28. 10.1007/s00784-024-05523-710.1007/s00784-024-05523-7 ↗
29. 10.1155/2022/575664910.1155/2022/5756649 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.dental.2021.08.01410.1016/j.dental.2021.08.014 ↗
31. Tay F. R. · J. Can. Dent Assoc. · 2003 · 69 · 726
32. 10.2341/16-062-L10.2341/16-062-L ↗
33. 10.2341/17-366-L10.2341/17-366-L ↗
34. 10.1177/15440591040830060410.1177/154405910408300604 ↗
35. 10.1177/002203451246039610.1177/0022034512460396 ↗