Document Type

Thesis

Effect of Three Different Contamination Removal Methods on Bond Strength of Ceramic To Enamel Contaminated With Aluminum Chloride and Ferric Sulfate

Authors

Cesar Gonzalez, Nova Southeastern UniversityFollow

Degree Name

Master of Science (M.S.) in Dentistry

Copyright Statement

All rights reserved. This publication is intended for use solely by faculty, students, and staff of Nova Southeastern University. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, now known or later developed, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author or the publisher.

Department

College of Dental Medicine

First Advisor

Sharon C Siegel

Publication Date / Copyright Date

2018

Publisher

Nova Southeastern University

NSUWorks Citation

Cesar Gonzalez. 2018. Effect of Three Different Contamination Removal Methods on Bond Strength of Ceramic To Enamel Contaminated With Aluminum Chloride and Ferric Sulfate. Master's thesis. Nova Southeastern University. Retrieved from NSUWorks, College of Dental Medicine. (74)
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/hpd_cdm_stuetd/74.

Abstract

Background: The need to control moisture and contamination is crucial in adhesive dentistry, especially when rubber dam isolation is not feasible. Hemostatic contamination can negatively affect adhesion to tooth substrate. To achieve better outcomes, hemostatic agents should be rinsed off properly using a method that will remove the contamination and will not affect the μ-SBS. Objective: To evaluate and compare the effect of three different aluminum chloride and ferric sulfate contamination removal methods on the μ-SBS of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic bonded to enamel and to compare the type of fracture between samples. Material and Methods: Lithium disilicate blocks (IPS e.max CAD) were cut into samples of 2 mm in diameter and 3mm in height. Thirty-five human molar teeth were collected and separated into seven groups (n=17) Groups: G1(control): No contamination. G2: Contamination with aluminum chloride and removal by 30 seconds water-rinse. G3: Contamination with aluminum chloride, removal by re-etching (37.5% phosphoric acid), water-rinse. G4: Contamination with aluminum chloride, removal with 18% EDTA G5: Contamination with ferric sulfate, removal with water-rinse. G6: Contamination with ferric sulfate, removal by re-etching (37.5% phosphoric acid), water-rinse and dried. G7: Contamination with ferric sulfate, removal with 18% EDTA. The enamel surface was etched, then contaminated with aluminum chloride and ferric sulfate, cleaned using 3 different methods, previously described. Ceramic samples were etched with HF acid, silanated then bonded to enamel surface using Optibond FL, Variolink veneer cement and the Elipar S10 curing light, to avoid oxygen inhibition restoration margins were cover with a glycerin to complete polymerization of 10 -30 seconds each side. Specimens were stored in deionized water for 7 days, then subjected to μ-SBS testing, fractured specimens were examined with a stereomicroscope to determine the type of fracture, and five sample of each group were selected for SEM. To compare differences for the outcome a general linear mode ANOVA was created, and data recorded. Results: There were statistically significant differences among the studied groups for the μ-SBS (p< 0.05). The G6 (Ferric sulfate- Re-etching) was the closest mean μ-SBS (10.75 MPa) to the G1(control group).μ-SBS (16.24 MPa), the lowest μ-SBS (6.13 MPa) for the G4 (Aluminum chloride-EDTA). The groups using ferric sulfate as a cleaning method presented higher μ-SBS MPa than the groups using aluminum chloride as a cleaning method. The type of fracture on groups with higher μ-SBS (MPa), G6 - 10.75 MPa (ferric sulfate-reetching), G5 - 9.21 μ-SBS(MPa) (Ferric sulfate-water) presented more cohesive fractures, while groups with lower μ-SBS(MPa), G4 – 6.13 MPa (Aluminum chloride- EDTA), G3 – 6.27 (aluminum chloride- re- etching) presented more mixed fractures. Conclusions: The present study sought to investigate the effect of three different contamination removal methods on bond strength of ceramic to enamel contaminated with aluminum chloride and ferric sulfate. Ferric sulfate hemostatic agent showed higher μ-SBS in all contamination removal methods when compare to aluminum chloride hemostatic agent. But all the contamination removal methods in both groups failed to increase the bond strength on enamel to the level of the control group. Further research is required before we can make definitive conclusions

Disciplines

Dentistry

Keywords

Health and environmental sciences, Aluminum chloride, Bond strength, Enamel, Ferric sulfate, Hemostatic

Files