Resin Replica in Enamel Deproteinization and its Effect on Acid Etching

The goal of this in vitro study was to identify the topographical features of deproteinized (NaOCl) and etched with phosphoric acid (H3PO4) enamel surface, compared to phosphoric acid surface alone with a Resin Replica model. Materials: Ten extracted lower first and second permanent molars were polished with pumice and water, and then divided into 3 equal buccal sections having similar physical and chemical properties. The enamel surfaces of each group were subjected to the following treatments: Group A: Acid Etching with H3PO4 37% for 15 seconds. Group B: Sodium Hypochlorite (NaOCl) 5.25% for 60 seconds followed by Acid Etching with H3PO4 37% for 15 seconds. Group C; No treatment (control). All the samples were treated as follow: Adhesive and resin were applied to all groups after A, B and C treatment were performed; Then enamel/dentin decalcification and deproteinization and topographic SEM Resin Replica assessment were used to identify resin tags enamel surface quality penetration. Results showed that group B reached an area of 7.52mm2 of the total surface, with a 5.68 mm2 (73%)resin tag penetration equivalent type I and II etching pattern, 1.71 mm2 (26%) equivalent to type III etching pattern and 0.07 mm2 (1%) unaffected surface. Followed by group A with 7.48 mm2 of the total surface, with a 3.47 mm2 (46 %)resin tag penetration equivalent to type I and II etching pattern, 3.30 mm2 (45 %)equivalent to type III etching pattern and 0.71 mm2, and (9 %) unaffected surface. Group C did not show any resin tag penetration. A significant statistical difference (P <0,001) existed between groups A and B in resin quality penetration, leading to the conclusion that when the enamel is deproteinizated with 5.25% NaOCl for 1 minute prior H3PO4, the surface and topographical features of the replica resin penetration surface increases significantly with type I-II etching pattern.

Enamel, deproteinization, sodium hypochlorite, phosphoric acid, etching, resin replica, permanent teeth

1. Buonocore MGA simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res, 34: 849–53,1955.

2. Buonocore MG, Gwinett AJ. Adhesives and caries prevention: a preliminary report. J Brit Dent, 7: 77–80, 1965.

3. Gwinett AJ, Marsui A. A study of enamel adhesives: the physical relationship between enamel and adhesive. Arch Oral Biol, 12: 1615–20, 1967.

4. Gwinnett AJ. Histological changes in human enamel following treatmentwith acidic adhesive conditioning agents. Arch Oral Biol, 16:731–38, 1971.

5. Silverstone LM, Saxton CA, Dogon IL, Fejerskov O. Variation in the pattern of acid etching of human dental enamel examined by scanning electron microscopy. Caries Res, 9: 373–87, 1975.

6. Kodaka T, Kuroiwa M, Higashi S. Structural and distribution patterns of surface “prismless” enamel in human permanent teeth. Caries Res, 25: 7–20, 1991.

7. Silverstone LM. (1974) The acid etch technique: in vivo studies with special reference to enamel surface and the enamel-resin interface. In: Silverstone, LM, Dogon IL, eds. Proceedings of an International Symposium on the Acid Etch Technique. St Paul, MN: North Central Publishing. 13–39.

8. Van Hassel HJ, Davis JM, Olsen DP, Godfery GW. Effect of the time of application and concentration of etching acid on the retention of composite restorations. IADR. 29, 1971.

9. Van Meerbeek B, Inouse S, Perdigao J, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. (2001) Enamel and Dentin Adhesion. Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry. A Contemporary Approach. Chicago: Quintessence, 178–235.

10. Buonocore MG, Cueto EI. Sealing of pits and fissures with an adhesive resin: its use in caries prevention. J Am Dent Assoc, 75: 121–28, 1967.

11. Nakabayashi N, Pashley AD. (1998) A Hybridization of Dental Hard Tissues. Tokyo: Quintessence

12. Ohsawa T. Studies on solubility and adhesion of the enamel in pretreatment for caries preventive sealing. Bull Tokyo Dent, 1: 65–82, 1972.

13. Knobloch LA, Meyer T, Kerby RE, Johnston W. Microleakage and bond Strength of sealant to primary enamel comparing air abrasion and acid etch techniques, Pediatric Dent, 27(6): 463–9, 2005.

14. Mjor IA, Fejerskov O, editors (1986). Human Oral Embryology and Histology. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

15. Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B, Perdigao J, Venherle G. (2001) Adhesion. In: Wilson N, Roulet JF, Fuzzi M, eds. Advances in Operative dentistry: Challenges of the Future. Chicago: Quintessence.

16. Hobson RS, Rugg-Gunn AJ, Booth TA. Acid-etch patterns on the buccal surface of human permanent teeth. Arch Oral Biol, 47(5): 407–12, 2002.

17. Hobson RS, Crotty T, Thomason JM, Jepson NJ. A quantitative study of enamel acid etch patterns on surfaces used for retention of resinbonded fixed prostheses. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent, 13(3): 123–28, 2005.

18. Wendt LK, Koch G, et al, Replacements of Restorations in the Primary and Young Permanent Dentition. Swed Dent J, 22 (4): 149–55, 1998.

19. Bolaños-Carmona V, Gonzalo-Lopez, et al. Effects of Etching Time of Primary Dentin on Interface Morphology and Microtensile Bond Strenth. Dent Mater, 22 (December): 1121–1129, 2006.

20. Espinosa E, Valencia R, Uribe M, Ceja I, Saadia M. Enamel deproteinization and its effect on Acid Etching: An in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 2008; 33(1): 13–20.

21. Wendt L-K, Koch G, Birkhed D, On the Retention and Effectiveness of Fissure Sealant in Permanent Molars After 15–20 Years: A Cohort Study. Community Dent Oral Epidemiolol, 29 (August): 302–307, 2001.

22. Houpt M, Fuks A, et al, The Preventive Resin (Composite Resin/-Year Sealant) Restoration: Nine-Year Results. QUINTESSENCE INT; 25 (March): 155-159, 1994.

23. Going RE, Haugh LD, Grainger DA, Conti AJ: Four year clinical evaluation of a pit and fissure sealant. J Am Dent Assoc, 95: 972–81, 1977.

24. Henostrosa H. Estetica en Odontologia. Chapter 8, Ripano Editorial, Spain, 2006

25. Miranda MS, Cal Neto JO, Barceleiro Mde O, Dias KR. SEM evaluation of a non-rinse conditioner and a self-etching adhesive regarding enamel penetration. Oper Dent, 31(1): 78–83, 2006.

26. Cal-Neto JP, de Miranda MS, Dias KR. Comparative SEM evaluation of penetration of adhesive systems in human dentin with a non-rinse conditioner and a self-etching primer. Braz Dent J, 15(1): 19–25. Epub 2004 Aug 16, 2004.

27. Pashley DH, Tay FR. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching adhesives. Part II: etching effects on unground enamel. Dent Mater, 17(5): 430–44, 2001.

28. Luo Y, Lo EC, Wei SH, Tay FR.Faculty of Dentistry, The Prince Philip Dental Hospital, The University of Hong Kong, 34 Hospital Road, Hong Kong. Comparison of pulse activation vs conventional light-curing on marginal adaptation of a compomer conditioned using a totaletch or a self-etch technique. Dent Mater, 18(1): 36–48, 2002.

29. Rotta M, Bresciani P, Moura SK, Grande RH, Hilgert LA, Baratieri LN, Loguercio AD, Reis A. Effects of phosphoric acid pretreatment and substitution of bonding resin on bonding effectiveness of self-etching systems to enamel. J Adhes Dent, 9(6): 537–45, 2007.

30. Luo Y, Tay FR, Lo EC, Wei SH. Marginal adaptation of a new compomer under different conditioning methods. J Dent, Sep; 28(7): 495–500, 2000.

31. Ferrari M, Mannocci F, Kugel G, García-Godoy F. Standardized microscopic evaluation of the bonding mechanism of NRC/Prime & Bond NT. Am J Dent, 12(2): 77–83, 1999.

32. Gotti G, Goracci C, García-Godoy F, Ferrari M. Evaluation of the bonding mechanism of an adhesive material to primary teeth. J Dent Child (Chic), 71(1): 54–60, 2004.

33. Justus R, Cubero T, Ondarza R, Morales F; A New Technique With Sodium Hypochlorite to Increase Bracket Shear Bond Strength of Fluoride-releasing Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cements: Comparing Shear Bond Strength of Two Adhesive Systems With Enamel Surface Deproteinization Before Etching . Seminars in Orthodontics, 16: 66–75, 2010.