Mapping of tubule and intertubule surface areas available for bonding in Class V and Class II preparations

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the morphology of dentine in Class V and the Class II preparation walls in terms of tubule orientation, density and increase in surface area after conditioning. Six circular V-shaped preparations were cut at the cementum-enamel junction (CEJ) of anterior teeth and six Class II cavities with the cervical margin 1 mm below the CEJ were prepared in posterior teeth. The preparations were conditioned with 10% maleic acid. The samples were directly studied by SEM. The observations were organized according to location in the preparation, tubule density was counted and the increase in area available for bonding after acid etching was calculated.

Dentine morphology of Class V and Class II preparation walls was mostly regular according to predictable patterns. Between the tubules, along the walls of the cavity, the etched dentine surface exhibited a porous network of collagen fibers. More than 50% of Class V and Class II cavity surface presented oblique or parallel tubule orientation with respect to the cut surface. Because of the presence of a structureless cementum layer. the morphology of the cervical area turned out to be less predictable. The tubule density varied considerably in different regions of the preparations. The intertubular dentine surface area increased after conditioning in Class V preparations from 20.9% to 50.3% on the walls where tubules were cut parallel to their long axis, and from 5.8% to 47.8% where tubules were cut perpendicularly. These same values for Class II preparations ranged from 0.6% to 46.4% on the walls where tubules were cut parallel to their long axis, and 29.8% of the tubules were cut perpendicularly.

Based on this morphological investigation, the increase in intertubular dentine surface area might very well be responsible for the enhanced bond strength after acid etching of dentine, but not all areas exhibited equal responses to etching. In particular, the bonding substrate at the gingival margins may contribute little in terms of micromechanical retention.