İKİ SELF-ETCH BONDING SİSTEMİN BİYOUYUMLULUKLARININ VE BAĞLANMA DAYANIMLARININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Abstract

 Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı iki farklı self-etch adeziv sistemin [Clearfil SE Bond (CSE) ve G-Bond (GB)] biyouyumluluk ve dentine bağlanma dayanımlarının değerlendirilmesidir.

Gereç - Yöntem: Çalışma için 8 adet çekilmiş çürük- süz insan üçüncü azı dişi kullanıldı. Tüm dişlerin oklüzal yüzeyleri düz bir dentin yüzeyi elde etmek için dişin uzun eksenine dik olacak şekilde aşındırıldı. Dişler rastgele 2 gruba ayrıldı ve dişlerin oklüzal yüzeylerine adeziv sistemler üretici firmanın önerileri doğrultu- sunda uygulandıktan sonra Gradia Direct  kompozit ile restore edildi. Örnekler, bağlantı ara yüzeyine dik olacak şekilde kesildi (bağlantı alanı: 1 mm²) ve her grup için 15 çubuk elde edildi. Çubuklar daha sonra mikrogerilim bağlanma testine (Microtensile tester, Bisco, Schaumburg, IL, ABD) tabi tutuldu. Veriler tek yönlü varyans analizi kullanılarak analiz edildi.  Biyouyumluluğun değerlendirilmesi için agar overlay testi yapıldı. 24 saat sonra inverted mikroskopla hücre dekolarizasyon zonu ve hücre lizis skorları tespit edildi.  Veriler Kruskal wallis ve Mann withney U testi ile değerlendirildi.

Bulgular: CSE (23.5 MPa), GB (18.9 MPa) dan daha yüksek bağlanma dayanımı gösterdi (p<0.05).  Agar overlay testi sonuçlarına göre ise her iki adeziv de pozitif kontrol grubundan daha az hücre lizisi ve dekolarizasyon zonu gösterdi (p<0.001).

Sonuç: Kullanılan bonding sistemlerin sitotoksisiteleri arasında istatistiksel olarak önemli bir fark olmadığı için daha yüksek bağlanma dayanımına sahip olan adeziv sistem (CSE) klinik olarak tercih edilebilir.

Keywords

• Biyouyumlu materyaller
• dentin yapıştırma ajanları
• sitotoksisite testleri

EVALUATION OF BIOCOMPATIBILITY AND BOND STRENGTHS OF TWO SELF-ETCH ADHESIVE SYSTEMS

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the biocompatibility and dentin bond strengths of two different self-etch adhesive systems[Clearfil SE Bond (CSE) and G-Bond (GB)]. Materials and methods: Non-carious 8 extracted human third molar teeth were used in this study. The occlusal surfaces of all teeth were ground perpendicular to the long axis of each tooth to expose a flat dentin surface. The teeth were divided into two groups and adhesive systems were applied according to the manufacturer's instructions to the oclusal surfaces of the teeth and restored with Gradia Direct composite resin. The samples were sectioned perpendicular to the adhesive interface to produce sticks (adhesive area: 1 mm2) and fifteen sticks were obtained for each group. All sticks submitted to microtensile bond strength test (Microtensile tester, Bisco, Schaumburg, IL, ABD). Data were analyzed using one-way varyans analysis ANOVA. An agar overlay test was used for the cytotoxicity evaluation. Cytotoxicity was examined by measuring the zones of cell decolorization and evaluating cell lysis by an inverted microscope after 24 hours. Data were analyzed using Kruskal wallis and Mann withney U test. Results: CSE showed higher dentin bond strength mean (23.5 MPa) than GB (18.9 MPa) (p < 0.05). Both bonding systems showed lower lysis scores than positive control material (p<0.001). Conclusions: The bonding agent which is higer bond strength may be prefered for a long-lasting restoration since there is no a statistically significant difference between toxicity of used two bonding systems

Keywords

• Biocompatible materials
• dentin bonding agents
• cytotoxicity tests

References

1. da Silva JM, Rodrigues JR, Camargo CH, Fernandes VV Jr, Hiller KA, Schweikl H, Schmalz G. Effectiveness and biological compatibility of different generations of dentin adhesives. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 10.1007/s00784-013-1000-9.
2. Ülker M, Özcan M, Şengün A, Özer F, Belli S. Effect of Artificial Aging Regimens on the Performance of Self-Etching adhesives. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 2010; 93:175-84.
3. Schmalz G, Schuster U, Koch A, Schweikl H. Cytotoxicity of low pH dentin-bonding agents in a dentin barrier test in vitro. J Endod 2002; 28:188– 92.
4. Schmalz G. Use of cell cultures for toxicity testing of dental materials--advantages and limitations. J Dent. 1994;22:6–11.
5. Wataha JC. Principles of biocompatibility for dental 18. Noda M, Wataha JC, Kaga M, Lockwood PE, practioners. J Prosth Dent. 2001;86:203–9.
6. Schmalz G. The agar overlay method. Int Endod J. 1988;21:59-66.
7. Schmalz G, Hiller KA ve Dörter-Aslan F. New developments in the filter test system for toxicity testing. J Mat Sci Mater Med. 1994;5:43-51.
8. Schmalz G. Biological proof of filling materials in the Gotting miniature pig-a pilot study. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z. 1981;36:357-60.

9. Eren D, Bektaş ÖÖ, Siso SH. Three different adhe- sive systems; three different bond strength test methods. Acta Odontol Scand 2013;71:978-83.
10. Reis A, Loguercio AD, Manso AP, Grande RH, Schiltz- Taing M, Suh B, Chen L, Carvalho RM. Microtensile bond strengths for six 2-step and two 1- step self-etch adhesive systems to enamel and dentin. Am J Den 2013; 26:44-50.
11. Harnırattısaı C, Roengrungreang P, Rangsısırıpaıboon U, Senawongse P. Shear and micro-shear bond strengths of four self-etching adhesives measured immediately and 24 hours after application. Dental Materials Journal 2012; 31: 779–87.
12. Yoshida Y, Nagakane K, Fukuda R, Nakayama Y, Okazaki M, Shintani H, Inoue S, Tagawa Y, Suzuki K, De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B. Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers. J Dent Res 2004; 83: 454-8.
13. Chıaraputt S, Roongrujımek P, Sattabanasuk V, Panıch N, Harnırattısaı C and Senawongse P. Biodegradation of all-in-one self-etch adhesive systems at the resin-dentin interface. Dental Materials Journal 2011; 30: 814–26.
14. Schweikl H, Spagnuolo G, Schmalz G. Genetic and cellular toxicology of dental resin monomers. J Dent Res 2006; 85: 870–7.
15. Koliniotou-Koumpia E, Papadimitriou S, Tziafas D, Pulpal responses after application of current adhesive systems to deep cavities. Clin Oral Invest 2007; 11:313–20.
16. Geurtsen W, Spahl W, Muller K, Leyhausen G, Aqueous extracts from dentin adhesives contain cytotoxic chemical. J Biomed Mater Res 1999; 48:772–7.
17. Şengün A, Botsalı HE, Öztürk B, Ulker M, Yalçın M, Hakkı SS. Agar-Overlay Metodu ile Dentin Bonding Ajanların Sitotoksisitelerinin Değerlendirilmesi. SÜ Diş Hek Fak Der, 2008; 17: 203-8. Volkmann KR, Sano H. Components of dentinal adhesives modulate heat shock protein 72 expression monocytes at sublethal concentrations. J Dent Res 2002;81:265–9. THP-1 human
18. Michelsen VB, Moe G, Skalevik R, Jensen E, Lygre H. Quantification of organic eluates from polymerized resin-based dental restorative materials by use of GC/MS. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci 2007; 850: 83–91.
19. Hamid A, Hume WR. Diffusion of resin monomers through human carious dentin in vitro. Endod Dent Traumatol 1997;13:1–5.
20. Pawlowska E, Poplawski T, Ksiazek D, Szczepanska J, Blasiak J. Genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of 2- hydroxyethyl methacrylate. Mutat Res 2010; 696: 122-9.
21. Sengün A, Yalçın M, Ülker HE, Öztürk B, Hakkı SS. Cytotoxicity evaluation of dentin bonding agents by dentin barrier test on 3-dimensional pulp cells. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011; 112: 83-8.
22. Vajrabhaya LO, Korsuwannawong S, Bosl C, Schmalz G, The cytotoxicity of self-etching primer bonding agents in vitro. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 107: 86-90.
23. Korsuwannawong S, Srichan R, L Vajrabhaya. Cytotoxicity evaluation of self-etching dentine bonding agents in a cell culture perfusion condition. Eur J Dent 2012; 6: 408–14.