Next Article in Journal
Effects of Cu Addition on Mechanical Behaviour, Microstructural Evolution and Anti-Corrosion Performance of TiAl-Based Intermetallic Alloy under Different Strain Rates
Next Article in Special Issue
Structural, Physical, and Mechanical Analysis of ZnO and TiO2 Nanoparticle-Reinforced Self-Adhesive Coating Restorative Material
Previous Article in Journal
Study on Concrete Deterioration in Different NaCl-Na2SO4 Solutions and the Mechanism of Cl− Diffusion
Previous Article in Special Issue
Bonding Performance of Universal Adhesives Applied to Nano-Hydroxyapatite Desensitized Dentin Using Etch-and-Rinse or Self-Etch Mode
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 14
Issue 17
10.3390/ma14175055
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of the Interfaces between Restorative and Regenerative Biomaterials Used in Vital Pulp Therapy

by
Maria Teresa Xavier
1,*,
Ana Luísa Costa
1,2,
Francisco José Caramelo
3,
Paulo Jorge Palma
2,4 and
João Carlos Ramos
5,6
1
Institute of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-075 Coimbra, Portugal
2
Centre for Innovation and Research in Oral Sciences (CIROS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-075 Coimbra, Portugal
3
Laboratory of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-075 Coimbra, Portugal
4
Institute of Endodontics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-075 Coimbra, Portugal
5
Institute of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-075 Coimbra, Portugal
6
Laboratory of Biomechanical Tests, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, 3000-075 Coimbra, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2021, 14(17), 5055; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14175055
Submission received: 13 July 2021 / Revised: 21 August 2021 / Accepted: 27 August 2021 / Published: 3 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Adhesives and Composite Resins in Contemporary Restorative Dentistry: From the Lab to the Clinic)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Calcium-silicate-based cements (CSC) have gained an increasing scientific and clinical relevance, enabling more conservative approaches, namely pulp preservation and regeneration therapies. This research aims to study the influence of four clinical variables on the interfaces between CSC and composite adhesive restoration, concerning shear bond strength (SBS) and ultra-morphological patterns. Methods: SBS tests were performed in 320 specimens divided in 16 groups (n = 20) according to: two CSC (NuSmile® NeoMTA, BiodentineTM); two adhesive systems (ClearfilTM SE Bond 2 (CSEB2), ClearfilTM Universal Bond Quick (CUBQ)); optional application of an additional hydrophobic bonding layer (HBL); two restoration times (immediate, seven days). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed to conduct the ultra-morphology interface analysis in 32 deciduous molars prepared and randomly allocated into the 16 groups. Results: Globally, SBS tests showed higher bond strength of CUBQ compared to CSEB2 (p < 0.001), as with an additional HBL application (p = 0.014) and delayed restoration (p < 0.001). SEM showed the interpenetration between adhesive systems and CSC forming a hybrid layer, whose depth and thickness depended on the restoration time and adhesive strategy. Conclusions: The independent clinical variables adhesive system, application of an additional HBL and restoration time affected the bond performance and ultra-morphological interface between composite adhesive restoration and CSC.

1. Introduction

The nomenclature used to identify materials based on tri/dicalcium silicate has confused the dental community, because terms such as bioceramic, biosilicate or bioactive endodontic cements are non-specific [1]. In general, all are hydraulic dental cements, relying primarily on hydration reactions for setting, as opposed to the more usual acid–base systems used in dentistry [2,3]. They set and are stable under water [4], do not deteriorate when employed in wet environments, reach their optimal physical and mechanical characteristics and form calcium hydroxide as a by-product of the hydration reaction [5].
Calcium silicate-based cements (CSC) have gained an increasing clinical relevance, enabling a more conservative approach based on pulp preservation and regeneration. To overcome some of MTA’s conventional limitations, new cements have been developed, such as NuSmile® NeoMTA (NuSmile Ltd. Houston, TX, USA) and BiodentineTM (Septodont, Saint-Maur-des-Fosses Cedex, France), combining the biocompatibility, bioactivity and remineralization of CSC with improved physicochemical properties (high compressive strength, excellent sealing ability, ease of handling, versatility, increased density, and fast setting time) and absence of tooth discoloration. However, there are limited in vitro and in vivo studies investigating the implications of the interaction between cements and the restorative adhesive materials that are crucial for the success of the restorative treatment; the adhesive interfaces are an important clinical factor affecting the longevity and predictability of the final restoration [6,7,8]. The characteristics of the adhesive interface (its hybridization pattern, namely micromechanical and chemical interaction) depend on the technique and type of materials used.
Therefore, this research aims to study the influence of four clinical variables on the interfaces between CSC and composite adhesive restorations, concerning shear bond strength (SBS) and ultra-morphological patterns. The tested null hypotheses were: H01—there is no difference between the two CSC evaluated (NuSmile® NeoMTA and BiodentineTM); H02—there is no difference between the two adhesive systems tested (ClearfilTM SE Bond 2 (CSEB2) and ClearfilTM Universal Bond Quick (CUBQ)); H03—there is no difference between groups with or without an additional hydrophobic resin bonding layer (HBL); H04—there is no difference between groups with different times for the final restoration (immediate or delayed for seven days).

2. Materials and Methods

The methodology included a quantitative and a qualitative analysis of the adhesive interfaces between CSC and adhesive composite restorations, comprising SBS tests and ultra-morphological analysis by scanning electron microscopy (SEM).

2.1. Shear Bond Strength Tests

The sample size was calculated using the software G*Power 3.1.9.2 (University of Düsseldorf) [9]. Power calculation was conducted to determine the minimal number of teeth required for the SBS test, as the principal measure. Considering an expected mean difference of 2.0 MPa and a standard deviation of 4.5 MPa [10] with a 95% power with an alpha-type error of 0.05, a total sample size of 133 samples was reached for each main group. In the present work it was decided to perform 160 samples for each main effect comparison, making a total of 320 specimens and SBS tests, divided by 16 groups (n = 20), according the 4 independent clinical variables evaluated (Table 1).

2.1.1. Specimen Preparation

Metallic blocks (30 mm height × 15 mm diameter), with a central cylindrical cavity measuring 4 mm diameter and 2 mm height, with a retentive 360° groove at the bottom of the cavity, were specifically designed and fabricated for this type of research work [10].
Each CSC was prepared according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Table S1). The central hole was filled with the CSC, digitally compressed with a humid cotton pellet and allowed to set. Samples from the immediate restoration groups were left for 3 min of setting time for NuSmile® NeoMTA and 12 min of setting time for BiodentineTM, prior to adhesive/restorative procedures, while samples for the delayed restoration groups were stored for 7 days for both materials before adhesive/restorative procedures (Table 1).
The 16 experimental groups were randomly selected for specimen preparation. Each group was prepared separately and according to the type of CSC, adhesive, additional HBL application and adhesive restoration timing (Table 1).

2.1.2. Restorative Procedures

Groups with Immediate Restoration

After the initial respective setting time for each CSC (3 and 12 min), the adhesive systems were applied over the CSC surface according to the manufacturer’s general instructions. There are currently no specific instructions from the manufacturers for the application of these adhesives on CSC.
For the CUBQ groups, the adhesive was applied with the applicator brush and left in place for 20 s. After that, the surface was dried with air until the bond did not move and was light-cured for 10 s at “High Power” mode (Bluephase® Style M, Ivoclar, Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein). In groups with application of an additional HBL, an extra layer of CSEB2 Bond was applied over de adhesive, dried with a mild airflow and light-cured.
After the adhesive procedures were finished and just before its final light-curing step was performed, a gelatin cylindrical capsule (Torpac® Fairfield, NJ, USA) was placed over the adhesive surface and the final 10 s light curing of the adhesive was done. After that, the capsule was incrementally filled with a flowable composite resin, SDRTM Bulk-fill flowable composite (Dentsply DeTrey; Konstanz, Germany), and light-cured for a total time of 60 s with the same light cure unit.
From the CSEB2 groups, the primer was applied, left in place for 20 s and dried with mild airflow. Then, the bond was applied and distributed evenly with mild airflow and left for 20 s. The following steps were carried out as described previously for CUBQ, namely with regards to photopolymerization, placement or not of additional HBL and restorative procedures.

Groups with Delayed Restoration

After placement of the CSC inside the metallic blocks, the materials were covered by glass ionomer cement (GIC) (Ionostar® Molar—VOCO® GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany) and stored in an incubator at 37 °C with 100% humidity for 7 days. After the storage period, the GIC was removed with black coarse aluminum oxide abrasive discs, 3M™ Sof-LexTM (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), until a flat surface of the CSC was exposed and polished using water sandpaper. The same adhesive and restorative procedures were applied as described for the immediate groups. A single operator carried out all the adhesive and restorative procedures. During all specimen preparations, the registered room temperature was about 23 °C, with 40% humidity.

2.1.3. Shear Bond Strength Tests

Before proceeding with the SBS tests, all samples were stored in the same incubator and conditions for 48 h. Each block was fixed in a universal testing machine (Model AG-I, Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan), in a shear mode at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min and 250 N, with a chisel-shaped rod, until failure occurred. The force registered, measured in N, was divided by the cross-sectional area of the adhesive interface and expressed in MPa. To avoid bias, a single and blinded operator carried out the SBS tests (Figure 1).

2.1.4. Fracture Pattern Analysis

The fractured surfaces of each sample were examined under a stereomicroscope (Opmi Pico, Carl Zeiss Surgical, Oberkochen, Germany) equipped with a halogen light source and a global magnification of 21.3×. The specimens were classified according to the failure modes [12,13,14]: adhesive fracture, cohesive fracture exclusively in the CSC, cohesive fracture exclusively within the restorative material, mixed fracture (comprises both adhesive and cohesive fracture).

2.1.5. Statistical Analysis

The SBS test results were described using mean, standard deviation and minimum and maximum values. The normality of data distribution testing was carried out using the Shapiro–Wilk test. A four-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the main effects (type of CSC, adhesive system, presence or absence of additional HBL and timing of restoration). The interaction between different combinations of effects was evaluated with a descriptive table for each group generated by the conditions analyzed. The association between the fracture type and the CSC, adhesive system, presence of HBL and restoration time was assessed using Fisher’s exact test. The Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Two-tailed p values were calculated with a significance level set at α = 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS® version 26 software (Chicago, IL, USA). The significance level was set at α = 0.05.

2.2. Bond Interface Evaluation by Scanning Electron Microscopy

2.2.1. Specimen Preparation

From a pooled biobank of extracted teeth, 32 deciduous molars with at least one third of the root and without furcation involvement were randomly selected. Before the extraction, the patients and their parents were informed about the use of the teeth for research or educational purposes and their informed consent was obtained. Because the samples used were collected from a pooled biobank, they are categorized as “irreversibly anonymized” (approval was obtained from Ethics Committee of Faculty of Medicine, of the University of Coimbra, Ref 002-CE-2020-020). Extracted teeth were stored in an aqueous chloramine solution 0.5%, at 4 °C for up to 6 months, following the norm ISO/TS 11405:2015, which was renewed every month.
Occlusal cavities exposing the pulp chamber were made in each tooth and the remaining pulp tissue was removed with a spoon excavator, rinsed with sterile saline solution and air-dried. These teeth were mounted in self-cure acrylic resin blocks that the cement-enamel junction was flush with the resin surface. The teeth were randomly allocated into 16 groups (n = 2), following the same variables described for SBS tests.

2.2.2. CSC Placement and Adhesive/Restorative Procedures

The CSC were placed into the pulp chamber cavity, allowed to set, adhesively treated, restored and stored as described previously for the same 16 groups evaluated by SBS tests. After storage for 1 week, the teeth were multi-sectioned in a buccolingual direction along their longitudinal axis using a high-precision diamond cut-off wheel from a high-precision machine (Accutrom 50 machine, Struers, Denmark) with approximately 1000 μm thickness.
The specimens were polished and treated by 35% phosphoric acid gel for 15 s, followed by washing and drying. They were sequentially dehydrated in increasing concentration of ethanol (50%, 75%, 95%, 100%) and were mounted on aluminum stubs, sputter-coated with gold–palladium and observed by field-emission SEM (Hitachi S-4100, Tokyo, Japan) at various magnifications.

3. Results

3.1. Shear Bond Strength Tests

3.1.1. Main Effects of Independent Variables

Concerning the main effects of independent variables on shear bond strength, the normality of data distribution testing was carried out using the Shapiro–Wilk test and the normality assumption was violated. Since the number of samples between groups for main effect analysis was similar (n = 160) and ANOVA is considered a robust test against normality violation, a four-way ANOVA analysis was conducted to establish statistically significant differences between the main effects (CSC, adhesive system, additional HBL and restoration time) as well as their interaction effects on the SBS test results.
Overall, a statistical significant difference was found in the ANOVA test for the mean SBS among the tested groups for the main effects of four independent factors: F(4. 315) = 13.112, p < 0.001.
  • Main effect “type of CSC”
No statistically significant difference was found in the mean SBS values between BiodentineTM and NuSmile® NeoMTA (p = 0.897) (Table 2). To test the interaction effects of the other independent variables, a comparison between all the groups with BiodentineTM and NuSmile® NeoMTA was done keeping the same variable combination (restoration timing, adhesive system and number of HBL). Only the combination of CSEB2 with an extra HBL and immediate restoration was statistically different between the two CSC materials, with higher bond strength for BiodentineTM (Table 3 and Table 4).
  • Main effect “type of adhesive system”
CUBQ showed statistically higher SBS values than CSEB2 (p < 0.001) (Table 2). The interaction effect of the other independent variables (CSC type, presence of additional HBL and restoration time) revealed that only the combination of NuSmile® NeoMTA with no extra HBL and delayed restoration was statistically different between the two adhesive systems with higher SBS for CUBQ (Table 3 and Table 4).
  • Main effect “additional hydrophobic resin layer”
The application of an additional HBL resulted in a significant higher mean SBS value compared to no additional HBL application (p = 0.014) (Table 2). Results between the groups with or without an additional HBL concerning the other remaining independent variables (CSC, adhesive systems and restoration timing) revealed that although 5 of the 8 comparison values were higher with the presence of an HBL, only the combination BiodentineSE0I was statistically different from the combination BiodentineSE1I (Table 3 and Table 4).
  • Main effect “timing of the definitive restoration”
Concerning the different restoration times, the delayed group showed statistically higher mean SBS values than the immediate one (p < 0.001) (Table 2). The interaction effect of the other independent variables revealed that the restoration timing was only significant for the combination NuSmile® NeoMTA, CUBQ without an additional HBL, showing better results for delayed restoration (Table 3 and Table 4).

3.1.2. General Distribution of Shear Bond Strength Results between All Groups

A descriptive analysis and dispersion graph were done to overview all the groups. Table 2 shows the mean, standard deviation, median, interquartile range, minimum and maximum value and Table 3 the p-values from direct comparison between groups.
From all the tested groups, the NeoMTAU07 showed the highest mean SBS value (11.36 ± 5.72), followed by the NeoMTAU17 (10.44 ± 4.65), with no statistically significant difference between them (p > 0.05). The highest mean SBS value in the BiodentineTM group was BiodentineU07 (9.44 ± 4.58), with no statistically significant difference between this group and NeoMTAU07.
The CUBQ revealed better bond performance in the NuSmile® NeoMTA group (p < 0.05), compared to CSEB2.
No application of an extra HBL, independently of the timing of the restoration (immediate or after seven days), resulted in a weaker bond for BiodentineTM and NuSmile® NeoMTA combined with the CSEB2, with statistically significant differences between NuSmile® NeoMTA, CSEB2, delayed restoration with and without HBL.
The group BiodentineU07 (9.44 ± 4.58) revealed the best performance within the BiodentineTM group. The BiodentineSE0I revealed the weakest performance.

3.1.3. Fracture Pattern Analysis

The same examiner repeated the evaluation of fracture pattern one month after the initial evaluation, re-scoring 32 specimens. A Kappa coefficient of 0.808 (p < 0.001) was found representing a strong agreement between the two analyses. The fracture pattern was compared between the groups regarding the four main effects (Table 2). According to Fisher’s exact test there was no statistically significant association between the fracture type and the CSC used (p = 0.127), with more cohesive fractures in both groups. There was a statistically significant difference between the adhesive systems (p < 0.001). Although both adhesive systems presented more cohesive fractures, CSEB2 showed more adhesive fractures than CUBQ. Conversely, CUBQ showed more mixed failures than CSEB2. We found a statistically significant association between groups with and without an application of an extra HBL (p = 0.011). In the group with an additional HBL, the more prevalent fracture was cohesive in the CSC, followed by adhesive fracture. In the group without an additional HBL, the more prevalent fracture was also cohesive but followed by mixed pattern. A statistically significant association was verified between the fracture pattern and the timing of restoration (p < 0.001). The delayed restoration group had more adhesive failures compared with the immediate group. Conversely, the immediate restoration had more cohesive failures in the CSC.
Representative SEM images of specimens with three different patterns of failure between resin composite and CSC are presented (Figure 2).
A total of 32 specimens (10% of the sample) were randomly selected and reanalyzed to determine the intra-examiner reproducibility.

3.2. Bond Interface Evaluation by SEM

Generally, in all specimens interpenetration between the CSC and the adhesive systems was present, forming a hybrid layer or interdiffusion zone between adhesive and CSC. Its thickness and depth vary according to the timing of restoration and adhesive procedure. In the delayed restoration groups, this interpenetration was less deep than in the immediate groups. The pattern of the morphological interaction varies depending on the adhesive procedure and the time of restoration. In the CSEB2 and in immediate groups the superficial “dissolution” of the CSC and incorporation of particles into the adhesive layer was generally greater, as well as the adhesive filling of spaces between the inorganic content of the CSC. The thickness of the adhesive layer varies according to the adhesive procedure; it was thicker in groups with an additional HBL. Some cracks and interfacial gaps observed are related to artifacts due to technical preparation for SEM observation, primarily in the cutting and dehydration process (Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13, Figure 14, Figure 15, Figure 16, Figure 17 and Figure 18).

4. Discussion

SBS is a common in vitro method to analyze the performance of an adhesive system to restorative material. It includes quantitative analysis to predict the load capacity and longevity of the bonding and qualitative screening tests, and is also used to study bonding interfaces and bonding failures. Academically, the SBS is defined as the interfacial adhesion between the substrate and the bonded material, intermediated by an adhesive layer [15].
The shear and microtensile are the most currently used, particularly the microtensile [16]. Because CSC are brittle, in thin cross sections it must be used in bulk to avoid damage. The shear tests allow simpler specimen preparation with a reduced risk of sample damage [7]. This test was chosen for the present study and the methodology followed previous research [8,10,17].
In the published literature, the diameter and depth of the central cavity of the metallic mold differs between 3–5 mm and 1.5–2 mm, respectively [10,13,18,19,20]. Considering the studies abovementioned, in particular Palma et al. [20], which related the high frequency of cohesive fracture patterns within CSC with the adhesive area, it was decided to use central holes of 4 mm/2 mm, with a 360° deep groove, allowing better retention of the CSC.
The use of gelatin capsules may have contributed for the zero premature failures because it eased composite insertion and capsule removal, after storage in 100% humidity, not causing pressure or stress in the sample adhesive interface. Regarding the composite block dimension, many studies deployed similar sizes, such as Carretero et al. [21]; it had a diameter of 2.26 mm and a length of 3 mm.
The sixth and seventh generation adhesives are useful in pediatric dentistry, particularly with behavior management, by reducing procedure time, simplifying multi-step etch-and-rinse procedures and minimizing technical sensitivity [22]. A new multimode generation has changed the traditional adhesive protocol, using either an etch-and-rinse or self-etch systems and with an immediate clinical performance equivalent with that of gold-standard etch-and-rinse and self-etch reference adhesive systems, OptibondTM FL (Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) and CSEB2, respectively. Recently, universal adhesives with a ‘quick and flexible bonding’ concept were introduced, claiming that the waiting time to guarantee its interaction with dentin, the solvent evaporation, is no longer needed. CUBQ is a ‘no-wait’ universal adhesive, although the manufacturer’s instructions were not followed since the long-term clinical performance still needs to be proven [22,23].
New CSC formulations vary from traditional MTA, including finer particle sizes, which increase the surface area for faster hydration, shortening the setting time and improving handling characteristics [24]. NeoMTA® dry powder has a more regular structure, with smaller (10 μm or less) spherical particles [25,26]. BiodentineTM has particles between 1–10 μm [27]. This affects the adhesion of cements to dentin by enhancing its interpenetration with it. Furthermore, it is believed that during setting the small particles lead to a decrease in the material’s porosity and an increase in its compressive strength [28]. NeoMTA Plus® and BiodentineTM have similar particle size and are smaller compared to conventional MTA, which may be the reason for the first null hypothesis was not rejected.
Isolated SBS values cannot be used to draw absolute conclusions or be compared with other data; only relative study outcomes are a valid basis for further interpretation of the results [29]. Furthermore, it is difficult to compare results obtained in other studies due to the variation of a several relevant parameters (restorative materials, adhesive systems and technical application, waiting and restoration time) [15] and in the experimental methods (speed of load and magnitude of maximum load when measuring SBS) [30]. The results from the limited data concerning adhesion of restorative materials to BiodentineTM reported that the methacrylate-based composites could achieve optimal SBS values (17.7 ± 6.2 MPa) [18] and with different adhesive systems varied between 15–19 MPa [13].
On the other hand, SBS of X-tra base (Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany) or VertiseTM Flow (Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) was 1.69 and 1.2 MPa, respectively; BiodentineTM overlaid by the composite resin (FiltekTM Z-350 XT, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) with universal adhesive (Single Bond UniversalTM, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) was 5.67 ± 6.2 MPa and was lower than previous studies and the present study. SBS of SDRTM Bulk fill flowable composite with CSEB2 Bond to BiodentineTM at two different times were 5.49 ± 4.28 and 6.98 ± 4.51 MPa, respectively [10,11,31]. Regarding the NeoMTA, to date, we are not aware of information about these tests that allows any type of comparison.
Regarding adhesion to CSC, it is still unknown whether a chemical bond exists on the interface [7]. Since there is no resin structure in CSC, such as NuSmile® NeoMTA or BiodentineTM, it might be speculated that the bond is micromechanical and results from the interdiffusion and interlocking between these materials [32]. Hydrophilic characteristics of monomers in adhesive systems can facilitate interdiffusion, but secondly it can have a negative impact attending its excessive diffusion in depth and compromising the correct polymerization of the adhesive and cement setting reaction. On the other hand, the acidity of the adhesive or phosphoric acid may be buffered by the alkalinity of the calcium silicate cement [15].
Some authors have revealed that the adhesive systems in either SE or TE modes had no statistically significant influence on the bond strength to the composite [7,33]. Other authors have concluded that sufficient bonding performance may be obtained without an acid etching, simplifying the adhesive step (universal adhesive applied on BiodentineTM showed similar bond values in self-etch and etch-and-rinse modes) [33].
Additionally, a two-step self-etch adhesive system (CSEB2) exhibited higher shear bond strength than one-step (ClearfilTM S3 Bond) [13], which is in agreement with previous studies [34]. There is controversy concerning the efficacy of self-etch systems applied over CSC; some investigations show they provide dentin bond strength comparable with etch-and-rinse systems [35,36], whereas others observed significantly lower bond strengths [37,38].
The universal adhesive (Single Bond UniversalTM, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) used as a self-etch showed a SBS mean of 5.66 MPa [31]. This’s in contrast with other study that used Scotchbond Universal® (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) and obtained 13.65 MPa. Both have respected the BiodentineTM setting time, so these may be due to different adhesive composition or operator/technique variable [21].
The present protocol design considered new adhesive strategies rather the bonding agents per se. The mean SBS varied between 3.62–11.36 MPa. Concerning the main effect “adhesive system”, the use of two-step self-etch adhesive CSEB2 resulted in a weaker bond, compared with CUBQ. The combination BiodentineSE0I and NeoMTASE0I presented the lowest bond strength in the BiodentineTM and NuSmile® NeoMTA groups; this may be due to precocious application of the primer over CSC. Although CUBQ had significantly higher values of bond strength than CSEB2, both contain similar functional monomers. The major difference is the primer application and the thickness of the adhesive layer: the CSEB2 was 40 μm [39] and the CUBQ was 5–10 μm [23]. This characteristic does not adversely influence the bond strength, but it may cause imperfect restorations in some clinical situations [33].
The functional monomers are important to improve adhesive clinical performance by increasing the bond strength with teeth. The HEMA is hydrophilic and is similarly present in both adhesives. It forms a polymeric network able to stabilize the outer surface of the cement after photopolymerization and absorbs moisture to aid hydration to the CSC setting reaction [40]. However, the hydrophilic nature of many simplified adhesives is one of the most documented factors responsible for the hybrid layer degradation [29,41,42]. HEMA has a relatively high allergic potential, lower polymerization efficiency, high water uptake and reduced nanolayering by the 10-MDP. New adhesives have been marketed with lower HEMA content or even without it [22,43,44]. Its content in CUBQ is 2.5–10%, compared to CSEB2, which is 10–30% [23,45]. As a result of this reduction, water sorption is reduced and polymerization conversion improved, which seems to be reflected in the absence of bond degradation upon 6 months aging when applied in both etch-and-rinse and self-etch modes [22]. Nevertheless, the water content of the cements themselves can remain a problem for the polymerization and stability of the adhesives.
The organic solvents that act as carriers of the monomers into the collagen fibers network in dentin and as diluents to lower the resin viscosity can also enhance the infiltration of resins into the microporosities and spaces [46]. Another potential reason explaining the superior performance of CUBQ is the better wettability of ethanol and water presented in its composition, in contrast to CSEB2, which contains only water as a solvent [47].
The degradation potential of resin–dentin interfaces present in the simplified one-step self-etch adhesives results from the water osmosis, from the environment, interferes with the cross-linked polymers formation and consequently a porous hybrid layer is produced because of the elution on unreacted monomers [46,48]. To bypass this drawback an additional HBL is applied over the polymerized adhesive [49,50]. Previous reports have described its improved performance and degradation prevention of the resin–dentin bonds as a result of the increasing thickness and uniformity of the adhesive layer, as well as to reduce the fluid flow across the adhesive interface [51,52]. However, this method has not been tested with self-etch adhesive systems applied over CSC in order to evaluate the bond strength and interface structure between them. In the present study and concerning the main effect “application of an additional HBL”, the overall analyses showed that this procedure significantly increases the SBS values.
For both CSC, the setting time is shorter than for MTA and bonding the final restoration directly after mixing the calcium silicate cement is worthwhile, as this is easier and less time consuming. However, the quality and durability of the adhesive bond between CSC and the filling material is clinically important for the longevity and predictability of the final restoration [7]. Therefore, a higher level of CSC setting is necessary before the restoration is done, since the durability of bonding may be affected by the state of the calcium silicate cement (set or unset) and the curing shrinkage of the composite may stress the unset calcium silicate cement [15].
In this study, restorations done after seven days exhibited better bond performance than restorations done immediately. In agreement with this, Kaup et al. reported a significant increase in the shear bond values of BiodentineTM to permanent dentin between 2 days and 1 week storage times compared to that of MTA [53].
Concerning BiodentineTM failure pattern analysis, a cohesive pattern within CSC might reflect its low cohesive resistance compared to high bond strength [20]. The literature is scarce and without consensus [21]; some studies described more cohesive fractures [13,20,31]; Tulumbaci et al. [54] found mostly adhesive failures and Altunsoy et al. [11] did not have adhesion failures. In accordance with the literature, both CSC presented similar rate of cohesive failures, but with no statistically significant association between the fracture type and the CSC used.
To achieve a successful restorative treatment with two materials with different characteristics there should be an appropriate bond on the interface to guarantee the long-term success [55]. In a simplistic analysis, the bond is considered acceptable when cohesive fracture happens rather than adhesive [56]. However, regarding the interfacial adhesion, if the adhesive procedures significantly interfere with the cohesive properties of the substrates, the assumption of satisfactory results based on cohesive fracture patterns is not applied.
Failure mode analysis showed a greater number of samples exhibiting more cohesive fractures in CSC in both adhesive materials, followed by adhesive fractures in CSEB2 and mixed fractures in CUBQ, with a statistically significant difference between the two adhesives. Regarding the application of an extra HBL, there was a statistically significant association between the fracture pattern and the application of an extra HBL. Furthermore, a statistically significant association was verified between the fracture pattern and timing restoration.
Similar to our results, Palma et al. [20] found that the cohesive pattern was mostly present in the immediate group, whereas the adhesive failure had a higher rate in the delayed group. Çolak et al. [19] also described the cohesive pattern as the most prevalent, after the samples were stored in distilled water for a period of 24 h. This is in contrast with 70% of mixed fractures after 12 min [15] and may be due to fact that the specimens were stored for 28 days after the restorative procedure to guarantee a complete setting of the CSC before SBS testing.
Altunsoy et al. [11] applied the composite resin after 72 h over the BiodentineTM and did not find any adhesive fractures, but instead found cohesive or mixed. After 24 h, Deepa et al. [31] found 60% cohesive and 40% adhesive fractures, like Tulumbaci et al. [54] had mainly adhesive fractures.
Unlike most studies that performed SBS tests immediately after the restoration, in this research and to avoid premature cohesive fractures within the incompletely set CSC, the tests were performed 48 h after. However, the cohesive pattern was the most prevalent in the immediate group.
In the SEM from all the specimens, the interpenetrations between the CSC and the adhesive systems were presented, forming a hybrid layer or interdiffusion zone. Its thickness and depth vary in accordance with the timing of restoration and adhesive procedure. The thickness was higher in groups with an additional layer of hydrophobic resin; in the delayed groups this interpenetration was more regular and less deep than the immediate groups; we hypothesized this may be due to the presence of water from the unset CSC and hydrophilic nature of the adhesive systems.
The pattern of morphological interaction of the adhesive with the CSC was also affected by these two variables. In the CSEB2 and in the groups with immediate restoration, the superficial “dissolution” of the CSC and incorporation of particles into the adhesive layer was commonly more evident, as well as the adhesive filling of spaces between the inorganic content of the CSC. Some of these spaces were probably observed in SEM to be empty due to a possible wash-out effect of the adhesive, and even CSC particles during the preparation of the cuts for observation.
Overall, within the limitations of an in vitro study, these findings permit us to predict the regenerative and restorative performance of CSC and the adhesive systems and emphasize the importance of an adequate choice of materials and techniques in order to optimize the clinical procedures. In addition, they highlighted new problems and issues, with potential clinical implications, which can and should be evaluated by new and different studies.
One of the limitations of the present study is the fact that the restorations aging process was not performed. Furthermore, the chemical composition of the hybrid layer was not performed to confirm the interpenetration on the interface of the CSC and restorative adhesive composite. Therefore, scanning electronic microscopy and/or energy dispersive X-ray analysis should be considered in future studies.
The laboratory studies permit us to predict the restorative performance of CSC and the adhesive systems. The influence of different variables suggests the necessity for additional research under thoroughly controlled experimental conditions. In this study, the total setting time of CSC was not considered; future studies should observe the influence of setting on the adhesion to the restorative material by evaluating the effect of allowing more time between the application of BiodentineTM and NuSmile® NeoMTA and the definitive adhesive restoration.
Further studies should also include CSC with different thickness, reproducing the different types of VPT, from the thin layers used in small direct pulp capping, to 2–3 mm applied in the pulpotomy. Furthermore, since this is a radiopaque material, it would be interesting to evaluate the light penetration from the UV into cement and how deeply is the adhesive polymerized. Complementarily to the knowledge from the underlying mechanisms of the adhesion to CSC resulting from microscopy imaging, the molecular interactions at deeper layers should also be assessed, in order to understand how the interlocking relation and the deeper penetration of the adhesive monomers into CSC may interfere with the biological properties of these materials, namely their biocompatibility and dentinogenic effect.
By carrying out in vivo studies, all possible micromechanical properties of CSC and adhesive systems may be investigated, accounting for their interaction and host conditions, particularly in the interfaces with dentin and pulp tissues. Thereby, it would be possible to disclose which therapeutic strategy is truly reliable for the restoration of VPT.
Later, clinical trials remain the ultimate way to collect scientific evidence on the clinical efficacy of these regenerative and restorative treatments.

5. Conclusions

Concerning the objectives initially defined we can conclude that, globally and with the exception of the calcium-silicate-based cement type, the remaining three clinical variables studied (type of adhesive, effect of placing an additional hydrophobic resin layer and time taken to perform the definitive restoration) can significantly affect the shear bond strength to calcium-silicate-based cements, in particular:
  • The shear bond strength to BiodentineTM and NuSmile® NeoMTA was similar.
  • ClearfilTM Universal Bond Quick provided higher shear bond strength when compared to ClearfilTM SE Bond 2.
  • The application of an additional hydrophobic resin layer over the adhesive improved the shear bond strength of composite adhesive restoration placed over calcium-silicate-based cements.
  • The delayed composite restorations, placed after seven days, provided higher shear bond strength than immediate restorations.
  • The scanning electron microscopy analysis identified an interdiffusion zone (hybrid layer) between the adhesives and calcium-silicate-based cements, but with differences between the groups. The penetration depth of the adhesives into the cements was higher in the group of immediate adhesive restorations, compared to those performed on the seventh day, and both adhesives penetrated deeper into the NuSmile® NeoMTA, compared to BiodentineTM.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ma14175055/s1, Table S1: Manufacturer, composition, steps for application, lot number of the materials used in the study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.T.X., A.L.C., P.J.P. and J.C.R.; Data curation, M.T.X., A.L.C. and J.C.R.; Formal analysis, F.J.C.; Funding acquisition, M.T.X.; Investigation, M.T.X., J.C.R. and Methodology, J.C.R.; Project administration, J.C.R. Resources, M.T.X.; A.L.C.; F.J.C.; J.C.R.; Software, F.J.C.; Supervision, A.L.C., J.C.R.; Validation F.J.C. and J.C.R.; Visualization, M.T.X., P.J.P. and J.C.R.; Writing—original draft preparation, M.T.X.; Writing—review and editing, A.L.C., F.J.C., J.C.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Research Support Office, Faculty of Medicine of University of Coimbra.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Approval was obtained from Ethics Committee of Faculty of Medicine, of the University of Coimbra, Ref 002-CE-2020-020.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article or supplementary material.

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by the Research Support Office, Faculty of Medicine of the University of Coimbra. The authors thank the Laboratory of Biomechanical Testing for the shear bond strength analysis, the Department of Materials and Ceramic Engineering (DEMaC) for Scanning Electron Microscope and VOCO® GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany and NuSmile Ltd. Houston, TX, USA for some material donation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Ha, W.; Kahler, B.; Walsh, L.J. Classification and Nomenclature of Commercial Hygroscopic Dental Cements. Eur. Endod. J. 2017, 2, 17006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Islam, I.; Kheng Chng, H.; Jin Yap, A.U. Comparison of the Physical and Mechanical Properties of MTA and Portland Cement. J. Endod. 2006, 32, 193–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Torabinejad, M.; Hong, C.U.; McDonald, F.; Pitt Ford, T.R. Physical and Chemical Properties of a New Root-End Filling Material. J. Endod. 1995, 21, 349–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Fridland, M.; Rosado, R. MTA Solubility: A Long Term Study. J. Endod. 2005, 31, 376–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Camilleri, J. Classification of Hydraulic Cements Used in Dentistry. Front. Dent. Med. 2020, 1, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aksoy, S.; Ünal, M. Shear Bond Strength of Universal Adhesive Systems to a Bioactive Dentin Substitute (Biodentine®) at Different Time Intervals. Stomatol. Dis. Sci. 2017, 1, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hashem, D.F.; Foxton, R.; Manoharan, A.; Watson, T.F.; Banerjee, A. The Physical Characteristics of Resin Composite-Calcium Silicate Interface as Part of a Layered/Laminate Adhesive Restoration. Dent. Mater. 2014, 30, 343–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tunç, E.Ş.; Sönmez, I.ş.Ş.; Bayrak, Ş.; Eǧilmez, T. The Evaluation of Bond Strength of a Composite and a Compomer to White Mineral Trioxide Aggregate with Two Different Bonding Systems. J. Endod. 2008, 34, 603–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.G.; Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Palma, P.J.; Marques, J.A.; Antunes, M.; Falacho, R.I.; Sequeira, D.; Roseiro, L.; Santos, J.M.; Ramos, J.C. Effect of Restorative Timing on Shear Bond Strength of Composite Resin/Calcium Silicate–Based Cements Adhesive Interfaces. Clin. Oral. Investig. 2020, 25, 3131–3139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Altunsoy, M.; Tanriver, M.; Ok, E.; Kucukyilmaz, E. Shear Bond Strength of a Self-Adhering Flowable Composite and a Flowable Base Composite to Mineral Trioxide Aggregate, Calcium-Enriched Mixture Cement, and Biodentine. J. Endod. 2015, 41, 1691–1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Atabek, D.; Sillelioglu, H.; Ölmez, A. Bond Strength of Adhesive Systems to Mineral Trioxide Aggregate with Different Time Intervals. J. Endod. 2012, 38, 1288–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Meraji, N.; Camilleri, J. Bonding over Dentin Replacement Materials. J. Endod. 2017, 43, 1343–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Odabaş, M.E.; Bani, M.; Tirali, R.E. Shear Bond Strengths of Different Adhesive Systems to Biodentine. Sci. World J. 2013, 2013, 626103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Schmidt, A.; Schäfer, E.; Dammaschke, T. Shear Bond Strength of Lining Materials to Calcium-Silicate Cements at Different Time Intervals. J. Adhes. Dent. 2017, 19, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Sirisha, K.; Rambabu, T.; Ravishankar, Y.; Ravikumar, P. Validity of Bond Strength Tests: A Critical Review-Part I. J. Conserv. Dent. 2014, 17, 305–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Bayrak, S.; Tunç, E.S.; Saroglu, I.; Egilmez, T. Shear Bond Strengths of Different Adhesive Systems to White Mineral Trioxide Aggregate. Dent. Mater. J. 2009, 28, 62–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Cantekin, K.; Avci, S. Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Two Resin-Based Composites and Glass Ionomer Cement to Pure Tricalcium Silicate-Based Cement (Biodentine®). J. Appl. Oral. Sci. 2014, 22, 302–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Çolak, H.; Tokay, U.; Uzgur, R.; Uzgur, Z.; Ercan, E.; Hamidi, M.M. The Effect of Different Adhesives and Setting Times on Bond Strength between Biodentine and Composite. J. Appl. Biomater. Funct. Mater. 2016, 14, e217–e222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Palma, P.J.; Marques, J.A.; Falacho, R.I.; Vinagre, A.; Santos, J.M.; Ramos, J.C. Does Delayed Restoration Improve Shear Bond Strength of Different Restorative Protocols to Calcium Silicate-Based Cements? Materials 2018, 11, 2216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Carretero, V.; Luís, G.-T.; Peñate, L.; Aregui, M. Shear Bond Strength of Nanohybrid Composite to Biodentine with Three Different Adhesives. Coatings 2019, 9, 783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Ahmed, M.H.; Yoshihara, K.; Mercelis, B.; Van Landuyt, K.; Peumans, M.; Van Meerbeek, B. Quick Bonding Using a Universal Adhesive. Clin. Oral. Investig. 2019, 24, 2837–2851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kuraray Noritake ClearfilTM Universal Bond Quick. Technical Information. Available online: https://www.kuraraynoritake.com/world/product/adhesives/pdf/universal_bond_quick_technical_brochure.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2020).
  24. Primus, C.M.; Tay, F.R.; Niu, L.n. Bioactive Tri/Dicalcium Silicate Cements for Treatment of Pulpal and Periapical Tissues. Acta Biomater. 2019, 96, 35–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Siboni, F.; Taddei, P.; Prati, C.; Gandolfi, M.G. Properties of NeoMTA plus and MTA plus Cements for Endodontics. Int. Endod. J. 2017, 50, e83–e94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Zeid, S.T.A.; Alamoudi, N.M.; Khafagi, M.G.; Abou Neel, E.A. Chemistry and Bioactivity of NeoMTA PlusTM versus MTA Angelus® Root Repair Materials. J. Spectrosc. 2017, 2017, 8736428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Li, Q.; Hurt, A.P.; Coleman, N.J. The Application of 29Si NMR Spectroscopy to the Analysis of Calcium Silicate-Based Cement Using BiodentineTM as an Example. J. Funct. Biomater. 2019, 10, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. About, I. Biodentine: Dalle Proprietà Biochimiche e Bioattive Alle Applicazioni Cliniche. Giornale Italiano Endodonzia 2016, 30, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. De Munck, J.; Van Landuyt, K.; Peumans, M.; Poitevin, A.; Lambrechts, P.; Braem, M.; Van Meerbeek, B. A Critical Review of the Durability of Adhesion to Tooth Tissue: Methods and Results. J. Dent. Res. 2005, 84, 118–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Shin, H.; Kim, M.; Nam, O.; Lee, H.; Choi, S.; Kim, K. Shear Bond Strength Comparison of Different Adhesive Systems to Calcium Silicate-Based Materials. J. Korean Acad. Pedtatric Dent. 2018, 45, 445–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Deepa, V.L.; Dhamaraju, B.; Bollu, I.P.; Balaji, T.S. Shear Bond Strength Evaluation of Resin Composite Bonded to Three Different Liners: TheraCal LC, Biodentine, and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement Using Universal Adhesive: An in Vitro Study. J. Conserv. Dent. 2016, 19, 166–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Oskoee, S.; Bahari, M.; Kimyai, S.; Motahhari, P.; Eghbal, M.J.; Asgary, S. Shear Bond Strength of Calcium Enriched Mixture Cement and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate to Composite Resin with Two Different Adhesive Systems. J. Dent 2014, 11, 665–671. [Google Scholar]
  33. Shin, J.H.; Jang, J.H.; Park, S.H.; Kim, E. Effect of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate Surface Treatments on Morphology and Bond Strength to Composite Resin. J. Endod. 2014, 40, 1210–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. De Munck, J.; Van Meerbeek, B.; Satoshi, I.; Vargas, M.; Yoshida, Y.; Armstrong, S.; Lambrechts, P.; Vanherle, G. No Microtensile Bond Strengths of One- and Two-Step Self-Etch Adhesives to Bur-Cut Enamel and Dentin. Am. J. Dent. 2003, 16, 414–420. [Google Scholar]
  35. Borges, M.A.P.; Matos, I.C.; Dias, K.R.H.C. Influence of Two Self-Etching Primer Systems on Enamel Adhesion. Braz. Dent. J. 2007, 18, 113–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Cacciafesta, V.; Sfondrini, M.F.; De Angelis, M.; Scribante, A.; Klersy, C. Effect of Water and Saliva Contamination on Shear Bond Strength of Brackets Bonded with Conventional, Hydrophilic, and Self-Etching Primers. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2003, 123, 633–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bishara, S.E.; VonWald, L.; Laffoon, J.F.; Warren, J.J. Effect of a Self-Etch Primer/Adhesive on the Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2001, 119, 621–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yamada, R.; Hayakawa, T.; Kasai, K. Effect of Using Self-Etching Primer for Bonding Orthodontic Brackets. Angle Orthod. 2002, 72, 558–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Jang, J.H.; Lee, M.G.; Woo, S.U.; Lee, C.O.; Yi, J.K.; Kim, D.S. Comparative Study of the Dentin Bond Strength of a New Universal Adhesive. Dent. Mater. J. 2016, 35, 606–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Gandolfi, M.G.; Taddei, P.; Siboni, F.; Modena, E.; Ciapetti, G.; Prati, C. Development of the Foremost Light-Curable Calcium-Silicate MTA Cement as Root-End in Oral Surgery. Chemical-Physical Properties, Bioactivity and Biological Behavior. Dent. Mater. 2011, 27, 134–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Armstrong, S.; Breschi, L.; Özcan, M.; Pfefferkorn, F.; Ferrari, M.; Van Meerbeek, B. Academy of Dental Materials Guidance on in Vitro Testing of Dental Composite Bonding Effectiveness to Dentin/Enamel Using Micro-Tensile Bond Strength (ΜTBS) Approach. Dent. Mater. 2017, 33, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Tjäderhane, L.; Nascimento, F.D.; Breschi, L.; Mazzoni, A.; Tersariol, I.L.S.; Geraldeli, S.; Tezvergil-Mutluay, A.; Carrilho, M.R.; Carvalho, R.M.; Tay, F.R.; et al. Optimizing Dentin Bond Durability: Control of Collagen Degradation by Matrix Metalloproteinases and Cysteine Cathepsins. Dent. Mater. 2013, 29, 116–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Van Landuyt, K.L.; Snauwaert, J.; Peumans, M.; De Munck, J.; Lambrechts, P.; Van Meerbeek, B. The Role of HEMA in One-Step Self-Etch Adhesives. Dent. Mater. 2008, 24, 1412–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yoshida, Y.; Yoshihara, K.; Hayakawa, S.; Nagaoka, N.; Okihara, T.; Matsumoto, T.; Minagi, S.; Osaka, A.; Van Landuyt, K.; Van Meerbeek, B. HEMA Inhibits Interfacial Nano-Layering of the Functional Monomer MDP. J. Dent. Res. 2012, 91, 1060–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Altunsoy, M.; Botsali, M.S.; Ulker, H.E. Evaluation of HEMA Released from Four Different Adhesive Systems by HPLC. J. Appl. Biomater. Funct. Mater. 2015, 13, E100–E105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Van Landuyt, K.L.; Snauwaert, J.; De Munck, J.; Coutinho, E.; Poitevin, A.; Yoshida, Y.; Suzuki, K.; Lambrechts, P.; Van Meerbeek, B. Origin of Interfacial Droplets with One-Step Adhesives. J. Dent. Res. 2007, 86, 739–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Neelakantan, P.; Grotra, D.; Subbarao, C.V.; Garcia-Godoy, F. The Shear Bond Strength of Resin-Based Composite to White Mineral Trioxide Aggregate. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2012, 143, e40–e45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Reis, A.; Carrilho, M.; Breschi, L.; Loguercio, A.D. Overview of Clinical Alternatives to Minimize the Degradation of the Resin-Dentin Bonds. Oper. Dent. 2013, 38, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Reis, A.; Albuquerque, M.; Pegoraro, M.; Mattei, G.; Bauer, J.R.d.O.; Grande, R.H.M.; Klein-Junior, C.A.; Baumhardt-Neto, R.; Loguercio, A.D. Can the Durability of One-Step Self-Etch Adhesives Be Improved by Double Application or by an Extra Layer of Hydrophobic Resin? J. Dent. 2008, 36, 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Reis, A.; Leite, T.M.; Matte, K.; Michels, R.; Amaral, R.C.; Geraldell, S.; Loguercio, A.D. Improving Clinical Retention of One-Step Self-Etching Adhesive Systems with an Additional Hydrophobic Adhesive Layer. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2009, 140, 877–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Andrade e Silva, S.M.d.; De Oliveira Carrilho, M.R.; Junior, L.M.; Pimentel Garcia, F.C.; Manso, A.P.; Alves, M.C.; De Carvalho, R.M. Effect of an Additional Hydrophilic versus Hydrophobic Coat on the Quality of Dentinal Sealing Provided by Two-Step Etch-and-Rinse Adhesives. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2009, 17, 184–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Vinagre, A.; Ramos, J. Adhesion in Restorative Dentistry. In Adhesives Applications and Properties; Rudawaska, A., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2016; Available online: https://www.intechopen.com/books/adhesives-applications-and-properties/adhesion-in-restorative-dentistry (accessed on 1 December 2020).
  53. Kaup, M.; Dammann, C.H.; Schäfer, E.; Dammaschke, T. Shear Bond Strength of Biodentine, ProRoot MTA, Glass Ionomer Cement and Composite Resin on Human Dentine Ex Vivo. Head Face Med. 2015, 11, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Tulumbaci, F.; Almaz, M.E.; Mutluay, M.S. Shear bond strength of different restorative materials to mineral trioxide aggregate and Biodentine. J. Conserv. Dent. 2017, 20, 292–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Hinoura, K.; Suzuki, H.; Onose, H. Factors Influencing Bond Strengths between Unetched Glass Ionomers and Resins. Oper. Dent. 1991, 16, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  56. Tate, W.H.; Friedl, K.H.; Powers, J.M. Bond Strength of Composites to Hybrid Ionomers. Oper. Dent. 1996, 21, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
Materials 14 05055 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the experiment set-up showing how the samples were prepared for SBS strength testing: (a) cylindrical metallic blocks; (b) the hole in the middle was filled with the CSC; (c) after adhesive procedures, a sectioned gelatin capsule was applied on the surface of the CSC and filled with the flowable composite resin; (d) a chisel-edge plunger was mounted into the testing machine and positioned, so that the leading edge was aimed at the CSC/adhesive interface. Adapted from Altunsoy, Tanriver, et al. and from Palma et al. [10,11].
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the experiment set-up showing how the samples were prepared for SBS strength testing: (a) cylindrical metallic blocks; (b) the hole in the middle was filled with the CSC; (c) after adhesive procedures, a sectioned gelatin capsule was applied on the surface of the CSC and filled with the flowable composite resin; (d) a chisel-edge plunger was mounted into the testing machine and positioned, so that the leading edge was aimed at the CSC/adhesive interface. Adapted from Altunsoy, Tanriver, et al. and from Palma et al. [10,11].
Materials 14 05055 g001
Materials 14 05055 g002 550
Figure 2. Scanning electron microscope images of mixed fracture (a), adhesive fracture (b) and cohesive fracture in CSC (c) (original magnification 40×).
Figure 2. Scanning electron microscope images of mixed fracture (a), adhesive fracture (b) and cohesive fracture in CSC (c) (original magnification 40×).
Materials 14 05055 g002
Materials 14 05055 g003 550
Figure 3. Group 1 (BiodentineSE0I): straight interdiffusion of the adhesive material protruding into the CSC. Cement particles are involved by the adhesive; a CSC/adhesive hybrid layer is observed ① with some empty spaces on the top of the hybrid layer ② (original 500× and 1000×).
Figure 3. Group 1 (BiodentineSE0I): straight interdiffusion of the adhesive material protruding into the CSC. Cement particles are involved by the adhesive; a CSC/adhesive hybrid layer is observed ① with some empty spaces on the top of the hybrid layer ② (original 500× and 1000×).
Materials 14 05055 g003
Materials 14 05055 g004 550
Figure 4. Group 2 (BiodentineSE07): hybrid layer with some empty spaces corresponding to the removed inorganic superficial content of the CSC and some deeper content of the adhesive. A remaining organic mesh of the adhesive in the hybrid layer is shown ①. Adhesive ②, BiodentineTM ③, composite resin ④ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Figure 4. Group 2 (BiodentineSE07): hybrid layer with some empty spaces corresponding to the removed inorganic superficial content of the CSC and some deeper content of the adhesive. A remaining organic mesh of the adhesive in the hybrid layer is shown ①. Adhesive ②, BiodentineTM ③, composite resin ④ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Materials 14 05055 g004
Materials 14 05055 g005 550
Figure 5. Group 3 (BiodentineSE1I): considerable interdigitation between the adhesive system and CSC. A thick hybrid layer is presented ①. Particles of cement involved by the adhesive (*). Adhesive ② and BiodentineTM ③ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Figure 5. Group 3 (BiodentineSE1I): considerable interdigitation between the adhesive system and CSC. A thick hybrid layer is presented ①. Particles of cement involved by the adhesive (*). Adhesive ② and BiodentineTM ③ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Materials 14 05055 g005
Materials 14 05055 g006 550
Figure 6. Group 4 (BiodentineSE17): some interpenetration between the adhesive system and CSC. A less deep hybrid layer is observed ① between the adhesive with a thick layer ② and the BiodentineTM ③. Composite resin ④ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Figure 6. Group 4 (BiodentineSE17): some interpenetration between the adhesive system and CSC. A less deep hybrid layer is observed ① between the adhesive with a thick layer ② and the BiodentineTM ③. Composite resin ④ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Materials 14 05055 g006
Materials 14 05055 g007 550
Figure 7. Group 5 (BiodentineU0I): deep interpenetration between the adhesive and the cement, with particles of cement involved by the adhesive. A thick hybrid layer is presented ① between the adhesive ② and the BiodentineTM ③. Composite resin ④ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Figure 7. Group 5 (BiodentineU0I): deep interpenetration between the adhesive and the cement, with particles of cement involved by the adhesive. A thick hybrid layer is presented ① between the adhesive ② and the BiodentineTM ③. Composite resin ④ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Materials 14 05055 g007
Materials 14 05055 g008 550
Figure 8. Group 6 (BiodentineU07): some interdigitation between the adhesive and cement. A less deep hybrid layer is observed ① between the adhesive ② and the BiodentineTM ③. Composite resin ④ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Figure 8. Group 6 (BiodentineU07): some interdigitation between the adhesive and cement. A less deep hybrid layer is observed ① between the adhesive ② and the BiodentineTM ③. Composite resin ④ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Materials 14 05055 g008
Materials 14 05055 g009 550
Figure 9. Group 7 (BiodentineU1I): deep interdigitation between the adhesive and the cement, with particles of cement involved by the adhesive. A thick hybrid layer is presented ① between the adhesive ② and the BiodentineTM ③. Composite resin ④ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Figure 9. Group 7 (BiodentineU1I): deep interdigitation between the adhesive and the cement, with particles of cement involved by the adhesive. A thick hybrid layer is presented ① between the adhesive ② and the BiodentineTM ③. Composite resin ④ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Materials 14 05055 g009
Materials 14 05055 g010 550
Figure 10. Group 8 (BiodentineU17): less interpenetration between the adhesive and the cement. A less deep interdiffusion layer is presented ① between the adhesive in a thick layer ② and the BiodentineTM ③. Composite resin ④ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Figure 10. Group 8 (BiodentineU17): less interpenetration between the adhesive and the cement. A less deep interdiffusion layer is presented ① between the adhesive in a thick layer ② and the BiodentineTM ③. Composite resin ④ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Materials 14 05055 g010
Materials 14 05055 g011 550
Figure 11. Group 9 (NeoMTASE0I): deep interdiffusion between the adhesive and the cement, with particles of cement involved by the adhesive (*). A thick hybrid layer is observed ① between the adhesive ② and the NuSmile® NeoMTA ③. Composite resin ④ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Figure 11. Group 9 (NeoMTASE0I): deep interdiffusion between the adhesive and the cement, with particles of cement involved by the adhesive (*). A thick hybrid layer is observed ① between the adhesive ② and the NuSmile® NeoMTA ③. Composite resin ④ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Materials 14 05055 g011
Materials 14 05055 g012 550
Figure 12. Group 10 (NeoMTASE07): less deep interdigitation between the adhesive and the cement. A thin interdiffusion layer is observed ① between the adhesive ② and the NuSmile® NeoMTA ③. Composite resin ④ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Figure 12. Group 10 (NeoMTASE07): less deep interdigitation between the adhesive and the cement. A thin interdiffusion layer is observed ① between the adhesive ② and the NuSmile® NeoMTA ③. Composite resin ④ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Materials 14 05055 g012
Materials 14 05055 g013 550
Figure 13. Group 11 (NeoMTASE1I): hybrid layer ① with evident interpenetration between the adhesive ② and the NuSmile® NeoMTA ③. Composite resin ④ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Figure 13. Group 11 (NeoMTASE1I): hybrid layer ① with evident interpenetration between the adhesive ② and the NuSmile® NeoMTA ③. Composite resin ④ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Materials 14 05055 g013
Materials 14 05055 g014 550
Figure 14. Group 12 (NeoMTASE17): some interdigitation between the adhesive system and CSC. A less deep or thinner interdiffusion layer is observed ① between the adhesive ② and the NuSmile® NeoMTA ③. Composite resin ④ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Figure 14. Group 12 (NeoMTASE17): some interdigitation between the adhesive system and CSC. A less deep or thinner interdiffusion layer is observed ① between the adhesive ② and the NuSmile® NeoMTA ③. Composite resin ④ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Materials 14 05055 g014
Materials 14 05055 g015 550
Figure 15. Group 13 (NeoMTAU0I): interpenetration between the adhesive and the cement, with particles of cement involved by the adhesive. A thick interdiffusion layer is presented ① between the adhesive ② and the NuSmile® NeoMTA ③ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Figure 15. Group 13 (NeoMTAU0I): interpenetration between the adhesive and the cement, with particles of cement involved by the adhesive. A thick interdiffusion layer is presented ① between the adhesive ② and the NuSmile® NeoMTA ③ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Materials 14 05055 g015
Materials 14 05055 g016 550
Figure 16. Group 14 (NeoMTAU07): interdigitation between the adhesive and cement. An interfacial gap and a less deep interdiffusion layer are observed ① between the adhesive ② and the NuSmile® NeoMTA ③. Composite resin ④ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Figure 16. Group 14 (NeoMTAU07): interdigitation between the adhesive and cement. An interfacial gap and a less deep interdiffusion layer are observed ① between the adhesive ② and the NuSmile® NeoMTA ③. Composite resin ④ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Materials 14 05055 g016
Materials 14 05055 g017 550
Figure 17. Group 15 (NeoMTAU1I): deep interdigitation between the adhesive and the cement. A thick hybrid layer is presented ① between the adhesive ② and the NuSmile® NeoMTA ③ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Figure 17. Group 15 (NeoMTAU1I): deep interdigitation between the adhesive and the cement. A thick hybrid layer is presented ① between the adhesive ② and the NuSmile® NeoMTA ③ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Materials 14 05055 g017
Materials 14 05055 g018 550
Figure 18. Group 16 (NeoMTAU17): less interdigitation between the adhesive and the cement and an interfacial gap on the hybrid layer. A less deep interdiffusion layer is presented ① between the adhesive layer ② and the NuSmile® NeoMTA ③ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Figure 18. Group 16 (NeoMTAU17): less interdigitation between the adhesive and the cement and an interfacial gap on the hybrid layer. A less deep interdiffusion layer is presented ① between the adhesive layer ② and the NuSmile® NeoMTA ③ (original magnification 500× and 1000×).
Materials 14 05055 g018
Table
Table 1. Experimental group details: CSC material, adhesive system, additional hydrophobic bonding layer application and time of adhesive/restorative procedures.
Table 1. Experimental group details: CSC material, adhesive system, additional hydrophobic bonding layer application and time of adhesive/restorative procedures.
GroupAbbreviationCSCAdhesive SystemAdditional HBL
(ClearfilTM SE Bond 2—Bond)		Restoration TimeRestorative
Material
1BiodentineSE0IBiodentineTMClearfilTM SE Bond 2no12 minSDRTM Bulk-fill flowable composite
2BiodentineSE07ClearfilTM SE Bond 2no7 days
3BiodentineSE1IClearfilTM SE Bond 2yes12 min
4BiodentineSE17ClearfilTM SE Bond 2yes7 days
5BiodentineU0IClearfilTM Universal Bond Quickno12 minSDRTM Bulk-fill flowable composite
6BiodentineU07ClearfilTM Universal Bond Quickno7 days
7BiodentineU1IClearfilTM Universal Bond Quickyes12 min
8BiodentineU17ClearfilTM Universal Bond Quickyes7 days
9NeoMTASE0INuSmile®
NeoMTA		ClearfilTM SE Bond 2no3 minSDRTM Bulk-fill flowable composite
10NeoMTASE07ClearfilTM SE Bond 2no7 days
11NeoMTASE1IClearfilTM SE Bond 2yes3 min
12NeoMTASE17ClearfilTM SE Bond 2yes7 days
13NeoMTAU0IClearfilTM Universal Bond Quickno3 minSDRTM Bulk-fill flowable composite
14NeoMTAU07ClearfilTM Universal Bond Quickno7 days
15NeoMTAU1IClearfilTM Universal Bond Quickyes3 min
16NeoMTAU17ClearfilTM Universal Bond Quickyes7 days
Table
Table 2. Results of the tested groups regarding mean shear bond strength values and fracture patterns concerning main effects comparisons.
Table 2. Results of the tested groups regarding mean shear bond strength values and fracture patterns concerning main effects comparisons.
Type of Main EffectGroupsnSBS Resultsp-ValueFracture Pattern Analysis
Mean * (SD)Min/MaxAdhesiveCohesive CSCCohesive RCMixed
CSCBiodentine1607.10 (3.91)0.84/18.480.8974559056
NeoMTA1607.16 (4.50)0.85/21.503877045
Adhesive
system		CSEB21606.09 (3.86)0.84/18.22<0.0015766037
CUBQ1608.16 (4.30)1.78/21.502670064
Additional
HBL		No1606.58 (4.32)0.84/21.330.0143077053
Yes1607.52 (4.03)0.25/21.505359048
Restoration
time		Immediate1606.05 (3.49)0.84/16.66<0.0011896046
Delayed1608.20 (4.59)0.85/21.506540055
* Mean shear bond strength value (standard deviation—MPa). p-value < 0.05 is statistically significant.
Table
Table 3. Global results of the tested groups regarding SBS values (MPa).
Table 3. Global results of the tested groups regarding SBS values (MPa).
GroupsnMean (SD)Median (IQR)Min/Max
1 BiodentineSE0I203.62 (2.78)2.59 (2.75)0.84/12.64
2 BiodentineSE07205.85 (2.83)4.71 (4.64)1.73/11.19
3 BiodentineSE1I209.19 (4.52)9.57 (6.99)2.44/16.34
4 BiodentineSE17207.90 (4.63)7.55 (7.98)2.24/16.71
5 BiodentineU0I206.01 (3.31)4.75 (3.94)2.01/15.76
6 BiodentineU07209.44 (4.58)8.55 (7.87)3.49/18.48
7 BiodentineU1I206.93 (1.94)6.76 (3.15)3.18/10.12
8 BiodentineU17207.87 (2.68)7.50 (3.05)5.10/16.36
9 NeoMTASE0I204.77 (2.01)4.76 (3.45)1.04/7.75
10 NeoMTASE07205.10 (2.17)5.43 (3.85)1.98/9.53
11 NeoMTASE1I204.69 (2.29)4.67 (3.23)1.23/9.42
12 NeoMTASE17207.65 (5.06)7.56 (6.94)0.85/18.22
13 NeoMTAU0I206.49 (4.27)5.81 (4.39)2.27/16.66
14 NeoMTAU072011.36 (5.72)12.04 (9.86)2.24/21.33
15 NeoMTAU1I206.75 (3.11)6.08 (4.04)1.78/13.43
16 NeoMTAU172010.44 (4.65)10.46 (5.13)5.28/21.50
Table
Table 4. Direct comparison between all the 16 groups (p-value).
Table 4. Direct comparison between all the 16 groups (p-value).
G12345678910111213141516
1 1.000<0.0010.0391.000<0.0010.6350.0441.0001.0001.0000.0861.000<0.0011.000<0.001
2 0.5881.0001.0000.3021.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0000.0011.0000.014
3 1.0000.8901.0001.0001.0000.0250.0730.0201.0001.0001.0001.0001.000
4 1.03001.0001.0001.0000.9831.0000.8121.0001.0000.4341.0001.000
5 0.4691.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0000.0011.0000.024
6 1.0001.0000.0110.0330.0091.0001.0001.0001.0001.000
7 1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0000.0251.0000.371
8 1.0001.0000.8911.0001.0000.3931.0001.000
9 1.0001.0001.0001.000<0.0011.000<0.001
10 1.0001.0001.000<0.0011.0000.001
11 1.0001.000<0.0011.000<0.001
12 1.0000.2151.0001.000
13 0.0061.0000.108
14 0.0131.000
15 0.223
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xavier, M.T.; Costa, A.L.; Caramelo, F.J.; Palma, P.J.; Ramos, J.C. Evaluation of the Interfaces between Restorative and Regenerative Biomaterials Used in Vital Pulp Therapy. Materials 2021, 14, 5055. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14175055

AMA Style

Xavier MT, Costa AL, Caramelo FJ, Palma PJ, Ramos JC. Evaluation of the Interfaces between Restorative and Regenerative Biomaterials Used in Vital Pulp Therapy. Materials. 2021; 14(17):5055. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14175055

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xavier, Maria Teresa, Ana Luísa Costa, Francisco José Caramelo, Paulo Jorge Palma, and João Carlos Ramos. 2021. "Evaluation of the Interfaces between Restorative and Regenerative Biomaterials Used in Vital Pulp Therapy" Materials 14, no. 17: 5055. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14175055

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop