Darzé F M, Bridi E C, França Fmg, Amaral Flb do, Turssi C P, Basting R T
Fernanda Medeiros Darzé, DDS, MSc, PhD student, Faculdade São Leopoldo Mandic, Campinas, Brazil.
Enrico Coser Bridi, DDS, MSc, PhD, professor, Instituto Nacional de Ensino Superior e Pós-Graduação Padre Gervásio, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Oper Dent. 2023 Mar 1;48(2):E35-E47. doi: 10.2341/21-143-L.
This study evaluated the etching pattern, surface microhardness, and bond strength for enamel and dentin submitted to treatment with phosphoric, glycolic, and ferulic acids. Enamel and dentin blocks were treated with phosphoric, glycolic, and ferulic acid to evaluate the surface and adhesive interface by scanning electron microscopy (2000×). Surface microhardness (Knoop) was evaluated before and after etching, and microtensile bond strength was evaluated after application of a two-step adhesive system (Adper Single Bond 2, 3M ESPE) at 24 hours and 12 months storage time points. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test showed a decrease in the microhardness values for both substrates after application of each acid (p<0.0001). The reduction percentage was significantly higher for enamel treated with phosphoric acid (59.9%) and glycolic acid (65.1%) than for ferulic acid (16.5%) (p<0.0001), and higher for dentin that received phosphoric acid (38.3%) versus glycolic acid (27.8%) and ferulic acid (21.9%) (p<0.0001). Phosphoric and glycolic acids led to homogeneous enamel demineralization, and promoted the opening of dentinal tubules, whereas ferulic acid led to enamel surface demineralization and partially removed the smear layer. The adhesive-enamel interface showed micromechanical embedding of the adhesive in the interprismatic spaces when phosphoric and glycolic acids were applied. Ferulic acid showed no tag formation. Microtensile bond strength at both time points, and for both substrates, was lower with ferulic acid (p=0.0003/E; p=0.0011/D; Kruskal Wallis and Dunn). The bond strength for enamel and dentin decreased when using phosphoric and glycolic acids at the 12-month time evaluation (p<0.05). Glycolic acid showed an etching pattern and microhardness similar to that of phosphoric acid. Ferulic acid was not effective in etching the enamel or dentin, and it did not provide satisfactory bond strength to dental substrates.
本研究评估了经磷酸、乙醇酸和阿魏酸处理的牙釉质和牙本质的酸蚀模式、表面显微硬度及粘结强度。用磷酸、乙醇酸和阿魏酸处理牙釉质和牙本质块,通过扫描电子显微镜(2000×)评估其表面及粘结界面。在酸蚀前后评估表面显微硬度(努氏硬度),并在应用两步法粘结系统(Adper Single Bond 2,3M ESPE)后24小时和12个月储存时间点评估微拉伸粘结强度。方差分析(ANOVA)和Tukey检验表明,每种酸处理后两种基底的显微硬度值均降低(p<0.0001)。用磷酸(59.9%)和乙醇酸(65.1%)处理的牙釉质的硬度降低百分比显著高于用阿魏酸处理的(16.5%)(p<0.0001),用磷酸处理的牙本质(38.3%)的硬度降低百分比高于用乙醇酸(27.8%)和阿魏酸(21.9%)处理的(p<0.0001)。磷酸和乙醇酸导致牙釉质均匀脱矿,并促进牙本质小管开放,而阿魏酸导致牙釉质表面脱矿并部分去除玷污层。应用磷酸和乙醇酸时,粘结剂与牙釉质界面显示粘结剂在釉柱间隙中发生微机械嵌合。阿魏酸未形成标签状结构。在两个时间点,对于两种基底,阿魏酸处理后的微拉伸粘结强度均较低(p=0.0003/牙釉质;p=0.0011/牙本质;Kruskal Wallis和Dunn检验)。在12个月时间评估时,使用磷酸和乙醇酸时牙釉质和牙本质的粘结强度降低(p<0.05)。乙醇酸显示出与磷酸相似的酸蚀模式和显微硬度。阿魏酸对牙釉质或牙本质的酸蚀无效,且未为牙体基底提供令人满意的粘结强度。