SEM study of a self-etching primer adhesive system used for dentin bonding in primary and permanent teeth.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the interfacial micromorphology of direct esthetic restorations bonded to primary or permanent tooth dentin with a self-etching primer adhesive system.

METHODS

Superficial dentin at the occlusal surface of 15 primary and 15 permanent molars was exposed with a carbide bur. Prompt-L-Pop was applied in one half of each surface. A control bonding system, Single Bond or Vitremer Primer, was used in the other half Teeth were restored either with a composite resin (Filtek Z250), a compomer (Hytac), or a resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer). Twenty-five scanning electron microscope fields from 5 teeth were evaluated blindly by two investigators for each condition.

RESULTS

In this study, a significant difference in quality of the interfacial seal was not observed when restorations performed in primary teeth were compared to restorations in permanent teeth. Interfacial gaps were observed in most restorations bonded with Prompt-L-Pop and restored with Filtek Z250 (9/10), Hytac (9/10), or Vitremer (5/10). No interfacial gaps were observed in teeth bonded with Single Bond and restored with Filtek Z250 (0/10) or Hytac (0/10), while all teeth bonded with Vitremer Primer and restored with Vitremer presented gaps (10/10). To understand the reason for the interfacial gaps observed with Prompt-L-Pop, we examined if this system generated a hybrid layer at the dentin/restorative material interface. All surfaces bonded with Single Bond and restored with Filtek Z250 or Hytac presented a visible hybrid layer. In contrast, 0/10 (Z250) and only 3/10 (Hytac) restorations bonded with Prompt-L-Pop showed signs of a hybrid layer.

CONCLUSION

The self-etching primer adhesive system Prompt-L-Pop failed to generate sealed interfaces consistently between the dentin of primary and permanent teeth and the composite resin or the compomer evaluated in this study.