Effect of Aluminum Chloride Hemostatic Agent Contamination on Shear Bond Strength of Glass-Ionomer Cements to Dentin
The purpose of this study was to compare the shear strength of the bonds between glass-ionomer cements and dentin contaminated with a hemostatic agent containing aluminum chloride, and uncontaminated. Human third molars were sectioned mesiodistally and ground to obtain flat dentin surfaces. One hundred and twenty dentin specimens were randomly divided into two main groups of 60 specimens each: Group 1 (control group) was uncontaminated; Group 2 was contaminated for two minutes with 25% aluminum chloride hemostatic agent. The specimens in both groups were rinsed with distilled water and air-dried. Subgroups were formed according to the four glass-ionomer cements used in the study (Ketac™Fil Plus, Ketac™ Molar Aplicap, Vitremer™ and Ketac™ N100). Dentin surfaces were restored with glass-ionomer cement (diameter 3 mm.). All specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours before the shear bond strength was evaluated in a universal testing machine. The types of failure were also assessed using a stereomicroscope with 100X magnification. The data was statistically analyzed by two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test and the average shear bond strength values were compared by the Independent Sample t-test at a 95% confident level (p<0.05). The interfaces between dentin and glass-ionomer cement were evaluated using scanning electron microscopy operated at 3000 X magnification. The shear strength of bonds betweenKetacTMFil Plus and contaminated dentin was significantly higher (5.31±1.45 MPa), and the shear strength of bonds between Ketac™ N100 and contaminated dentin was lower (2.80±1.80 MPa) than those of bonds to uncontaminated dentin. The shear strength of bonds between Ketac™ Molar Aplicap and VitremerTM and contaminated dentin were not significantly different from those of bonds to uncontaminated dentin. At glass-ionomer cement-dentin interface, different ion-enriched layers were presented by different glass-ionomer cements.In conclusion, the shear strength of bonds between glass-ionomer cements and dentin contaminated with a hemostatic agent containing aluminum chloride might depend on the surface preparations and compositions of glass-ionomer cements.
1. Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J 1972; 132:133-135.
2. Fruits TJ, Coury TL, Miranda FJ, Duncanson MG. Uses and properties of current glass ionomer cements: A review. Gen Dent 1996; 44: 410-418.
3. Wilson AD, Prosser HJ, Powis DM. Mechanism of adhesion of polyelectrolyte cements to hydroxyapatite. J Dent Res 1983; 62:590-592.
4. Watson TF. Bonding Glass-Ionomer Cements to Tooth Structure. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co; 1999:121-135.
5. Mount GJ. Glass ionomers: a review of their current status. Oper Dent 1999; 24:115-124.
6. Kulczyk KE, Sidhu SK, McCabe JF.Salivary contamination and bond strength of glass-ionomers to dentin. Oper Dent 2005; 30:676-683.
7. Iovan G, Stoleriu S, Andrian S, Dia V, Caruntu ID. Effect of saliva contamination on microleakage around class-5 cavities restored with three different types of adhesive materials. Rev Med ChirSoc Med Nat Iasi 2004; 108:894-898.
8. Nemetz EH, Seibly W.The use of chemical agents in gingival retraction. Gen Dent 1990; 38:104- 108.
9. MokbelAM, Mohammed YR. Local effect of applying aluminum chloride on the dento-gingival unit as a tissue displacement material. Egypt Dent J 1973; 19:35-48.
10. Azzi R, Tsao TF, Carranza FA, Jr., Kenney EB. Comparative study of gingival retraction methods. J Prosthet Dent 1983; 50:561-565.
11. Land MF, Couri CC, Johnston WM. Smear layer instability caused by hemostatic agents. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 76:477-482.
12. Land MF, Rosenstiel SF, Sandrik JL. Disturbance of the dentinal smear layer by acidic hemostatic agents. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 72:4-7.
13. Oliveira SS, Pugach MK, Hilton JF, Watanabe LG, Marshall SJ, Marshall GW, Jr. The influence of the dentin smear layer on adhesion: a self-etching primer vs. a total-etch system. Dent Mater 2003; 19: 758-767.
14. Di Nicolo R, Shintome LK, Myaki SI, Nagayassu MP.Bond strength of resin modified glass ionomer cement to primary dentin after cutting with different bur types and dentin conditioning. J Appl Oral Sci 2007; 15:459-464.
15. El-Askary FS, Nassif MS. The effect of the pre-conditioning step on the shear bond strength of nano-filled resin-modified glass-ionomer to dentin. Eur J Dent 2011; 5:150-156.
16. Ayo-Yusuf OA, Driessen CH, Botha AJ. SEMEDX study of prepared human dentine surfaces exposed to gingival retraction fluids. J Dent 2005; 33:731-739.
17. Martin RB. The chemistry of aluminum as related to biology and medicine. ClinChem 1986; 32: 1797-1806.
18. Tay FR, Smales RJ, Ngo H, Wei SH, Pashley DH. Effect of different conditioning protocols on adhesion of a GIC to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2001; 3:153-167.
19. Hajizadeh H, Ghavamnasiri M, Namazikhah MS, Majidinia S, Bagheri M. Effect of different conditioning protocols on the adhesion of a glass ionomer cement to dentin. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009; 10: 9-16.
20. Kuphasuk W, Harnirattisai C, Senawongse P, Tagami J. Bond strengths of two adhesive systems to dentin contaminated with a hemostatic agent. Oper Dent 2007; 32:399-405.
21. Kaneshima T, Yatani H, Kasai T, Watanabe EK, Yamashita A. The influence of blood contamination on bond strengths between dentin and an adhesive resin cement. Oper Dent 2000; 25:195- 201.
22. Abdalla AI, Davidson CL. Bonding efficiency and interfacial morphology of one-bottle adhesives to contaminated dentin surfaces. Am J Dent 1998; 11:281-285.
23. Yap AU, Shah KC, Loh ET, Sim SS, Tan CC. Influence of eugenol-containing temporary restorations on bond strength of composite to dentin. Oper Dent 2001; 26:556-561.
24. Xie J, Powers JM, McGuckin RS. In vitro bond strength of two adhesives to enamel and dentin under normal and contaminated conditions. Dent Mater 1993; 9:295-299.
25. Imbery TA, Swigert R, Janus C, Moon PC. An evaluation of dentin conditioners for resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Gen Dent 2009; 57:356-362.
26. Banomyong D, Palamara JE, Burrow MF, Messer HH. Effect of dentin conditioning on dentin permeability and micro-shear bond strength. Eur J Oral Sci 2007; 115:502-509.
27. Frencken JE, Taifour D, van 't Hof MA. Survival of ART and amalgam restorations in permanent teeth of children after 6.3 years. J Dent Res 2006; 85:622-626.