Influence of ultrasound and diamond burs treatments on microtensile bond strength

To compare surface treatments with CVDentUS ultrasound tips (UT) and KGSorensen diamond burs (DB) on etched (e) and non-etched (n/e) dentin. The microtensile bond strength (μTBS) was measured and fractography was assessed by scanning electron microscope (SEM).

Sixteen molars were divided into four groups of four teeth each according to treatment (DB-n/e; DB-e; UT-n/e; UT-e). The teeth were restored, sectioned into samples for μTBS (n=40) and tested on a EMIC DL-2000 universal machine (0.5 mm/min) and analyzed by SEM for fracture classification.

For analysis of the data on μTBS, the two-way ANOVA, using treatment and acid etching as fixed factor, and the Tukey test were used (α=0.05). To failures classification in cohesive in dentin (CD); cohesive in composite resin (CC); cohesive interfacial on base or top of hybrid layer (CBT); cohesive in adhesive (CA); mixed (M); interfacial on smear layer (S) the Fisher's exact test (α=0.05) was performed.

The mean values of μTBS (in MPa) in the different groups were as follows: UT-e: 45.31 ± 8.16; DB-e: 34.04 ± 9.29; UT-n/e: 15.17 ± 3.71; and DB-n/e: 9.86 ± 3.80. On analysis of the SEM micrographs, the DB-n/e group showed total obstruction of dentinal tubules; the UT-n/e group showed partial desobstruction of dentinal tubules and irregular surface; the DB-e group showed complete desobstruction of dentinal tubules; and the UT-e group showed complete desobstruction of dentinal tubules and irregular surface.

The combination of ultrasound treatment and acid etching provides high values of μTBS. An association exists between CA/CC failures and the UT method, CBT failure and the DB method, CBT/CC failures and etching, S failure and non-etching.