OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effect of saliva contamination on the bovine enamel microtensile bond strengths (microTBS) of four self-etching adhesives. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The labial enamel surfaces of extracted non-carious bovine incisors were serially wet ground. The enamel surfaces were not contaminated (Group A), contaminated with saliva before/after priming (Groups B/C) or they were water-sprayed after salivary contamination occurred before/after priming (Groups D/E). Four self-etching adhesives and the corresponding resin composites from the same manufacturer (Clearfil SE Bond + Clearfil AP-X, Kuraray Co; Xeno III + Ceram X, Densply; Frog + Ice, SDI; FL Bond H + Beautifil II, Shofu Inc) were applied onto the enamel surfaces. The microTBS tests were performed with a micro tester (BISCO, Inc). The enamel surface was analyzed with AFM (Atomic Force Microscopy) before/after salivary contamination occurred or after the saliva-contaminated enamel was water-sprayed. The data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA, factorial design ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's HSD multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Salivary contamination significantly reduced the microTBS of all the adhesives in the current study (p < 0.001). Thorough water-spraying could significantly restore the microTBS of saliva-contaminated enamel to some degree (p < 0.05) or fully restore it for Clearfil SE Bond, but it could not remove some proteins adsorbed on the enamel surface. CONCLUSION: Hydrophilic self-etching adhesives are negatively influenced by salivary contamination. Thorough water-spraying could significantly improve the microTBS of the saliva-contaminated enamel. Proper isolation should be performed before and during application of the adhesives and during placement of the resin composite.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jiang et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: