Article citationsMore>>

Van Landuyt, K.L., Snauwaert, J., De Munck, J., Peumans, M., Yoshida, Y., Poitevin, A., Coutinho, E., Suzuki, K., Lambrechts, P. and Van Meerbeek, B. (2007) Systematic Review of the Chemical Composition of Contemporary Dental Adhesives. Biomaterials, 28, 3757-3785.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.04.044

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: SEM Comparison of Penetration in Artificial White Spots Lesion between an Infiltrant Resin and Two Adhesive Systems

  AUTHORS: Ximena Zamorano, Vladimir Valenzuela, Alejandro Daniels, Agustín Iturain

  KEYWORDS: Artificial White Spot Lesions, Resins Penetration, Etch and Rinse Adhesives, SEM

  JOURNAL NAME: Open Journal of Stomatology, Vol.7 No.3, March 13, 2017

  ABSTRACT: White spot infiltration emerged as an alternative of non-invasive treatment to halt progression of the lesion, through the use of low viscosity resins that would permeate the porous enamel and form a physical barrier that would prevent the acid diffusion produced by micro-organisms. Purpose: To compare penetration levels in artificial white spot lesions, of infiltrant resin ICON™ and 2 conventional adhesives systems, XP-Bond™ and Single Bond 2™. Methodology: White spot lesions (ICDAS code 2) were caused in 75 premolars or third molars were extracted in good conditions, by immersion in a 0.1 M lactic acid solution (pH 4.5) at 37℃ for 8 weeks. They were divided randomly into 3 groups of 25 samples and applied the following resins, Group A: ICON™, B: XP-Bond™ and C: Single Bond 2™. Subsequently, the enamel was removed with hydrochloric acid to expose resin saturated area and the samples were metalized with Au-Pd for SEM observation. The resin tags lengths were measured on microphotographs through software, and the values were analyzed with the statistics ANOVA and Scheffé post-test. Results: There were significant differences (p ™ (82.7 μm ± 26.8 μm) compared to adhesive systems XP-Bond™ (58.5 μm ± 29.3 μm) and Single Bond 2™ (44.8 μm ± 32.5 μm). We found no significant differences between the two adhesive systems (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Under the conditions tested, the penetration of infiltrant ICON was significantly higher than the adhesive systems; however, it removes the surface layer of the enamel.