Indian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental Research
HOME | ABOUT US | EDITORIAL BOARD | AHEAD OF PRINT | CURRENT ISSUE | ARCHIVES | INSTRUCTIONS | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISE | CONTACT
Indian Journal of Dental Research   Login   |  Users online: 2079

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size         

 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL RESEARCH  
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 30  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 424-427
On the understanding of zinc-oxide eugenol cement use prior to etch-rinse bonding strategies


1 Department of Operative Dentistry, Postgraduate Program in Dentistry, Paulista University, São Paulo, Brazil
2 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Institute of Science and Technology of São José Dos Campos (UNESP), São José Dos Campos, São Paulo, Brazil

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication9-Aug-2019
 

   Abstract 

Context: Zinc-oxide eugenol (ZOE) is frequently used due to its satisfactory biological response, sedative effect on the pulp, and easy removal. However, literature is very controversial about the influence of the temporary cement-containing eugenol on the bond strength properties. Aims: This study aims to clarify the literature controversy by evaluating the bond strength of ZOE or ZOE-free applied before bonding procedures and the 7-day resting period after the first session. Settings and Designs: Twelve recently extracted third molars were randomly divided into three groups: Group 1: Control (without treatment), Group 2: Temp-Bond NE; Group 3: Temp-Bond. Subjects and Methods: After temporary restorations, the teeth were immersed in distilled water and stored for 7 days at 37°C. The temporary cement was mechanically removed, and prophylaxis was performed. The adhesive procedures were performed, and a 6-mm-high composite resin block was built. The teeth were immediately stored at 100% relative humidity at 37°C for 24 hours. Specimens with 0.7 (±0.2) mm2 of cross-sectional area were obtained and subjected to a microtensile bond strength (μTBS) test at 1 mm/min until failure. Statistical Analysis Used: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post hoc test were used for statistical analysis. Results: ZOE or ZOE-free cement did not interfere in the μTBS between resin composite and dentine when used with a two-step-etch-rinse adhesive material, considering 7 days of resting period after the first session, by the ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test (P < 0.05). Conclusions: The authors recommend the removal of the temporary cementation at least seven days after the first session and suggest that the clinicians follow-up further studies to use the cement in case its removal is recommended within a longer period.

Keywords: Dental adhesive, eugenol, microtensile test, resin composite, temporary cement

How to cite this article:
Bezerra CP, Campos CF, Leite J, Fernandes MS, Coury Saraceni CH, Rodrigues FP, Dutra-Correa M. On the understanding of zinc-oxide eugenol cement use prior to etch-rinse bonding strategies. Indian J Dent Res 2019;30:424-7

How to cite this URL:
Bezerra CP, Campos CF, Leite J, Fernandes MS, Coury Saraceni CH, Rodrigues FP, Dutra-Correa M. On the understanding of zinc-oxide eugenol cement use prior to etch-rinse bonding strategies. Indian J Dent Res [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Dec 8];30:424-7. Available from: http://www.ijdr.in/text.asp?2019/30/3/424/264114

   Introduction Top


Composite resin restorations are used to achieve good esthetic results,[1] and the success of these depends on the hybrid layer quality.[2]

Zinc-oxide eugenol (ZOE) is used due to its biological response, pulp sedation,[3],[4],[5] and easy removal. However, literature is controversial about its application before bonding [6] as it is well known that eugenol has radical-scavenging activity which inhibits polymerization.[7] However, ZOE or ZOE-free did not cause adverse effects [4],[8],[9] and is safely recommended before bonding procedures,[4],[10],[11] after 7 days of application although some authors showed reduced bond strength.[6],[12]

Thus, this study evaluated the bond strength of a two-step-etch-rinse adhesive using ZOE and ZOE-free applied before bonding.


   Subjects and Methods Top


This research protocol was approved by the University Institutional Review Board (Ethics Committee – Protocol: 063/06). Caries-free human third molars were obtained from the tooth bank of the university; all recently extracted for orthodontic reasons. The teeth were cleaned with pumice/water under slow speed for 15 seconds and then stored in a 0.5% chloramine solution at 4°C. Before bonding procedures (24 h), the teeth were left immersed in distilled water at 4°C.[13]

After this period, the radicular portions of the teeth were mounted on a phenolic ring (Buehler Ltd, Lake Bluff, IL, USA) with acrylic resin, and occlusal surfaces were cross-section removed using proper cutting machine (IsoMet 1000, Buehler Ltd, Lake Bluff, IL, USA) with a diamond cutting disc under water cooling, aiming to expose the dentine for bonding procedures.

The dentinal surface was polished with 600-grit silicon carbide abrasive paper (3M ESPE, ST. Paul, MN, USA) under running water for 60 seconds (Polishing Machine Politriz Maximille Metalotest Solotest Com., São Paulo, SP, Brazil) to standardize the smear layers [14] before bonding procedures.

Then, 12 teeth were randomly divided into three groups (four teeth per group), with 15 specimens in each group (n = 15): Group 1: Control (untreated); Group 2: ZOE-free Temp-Bond NE (Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA); Group 3: ZOE Temp-Bond (Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA).

One hour after material insertion (Temp-Bond NE and Temp-Bond), the specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 7 days. After this period, the temporary cement was mechanically removed and then cleaned with pumice and water with manual slow-paced movements for 60 seconds and subsequently washed for 30 seconds.

The adhesive procedures were performed on the dentinal surface: phosphoric acid etching at 37% + Single Bond (3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA). A 6 mm high composite resin block (P60-3M ESPE) was built with an increment of 2 mm each and light-cured with 600 mW/cm 2 irradiation. The device's curing density power was checked with a curing radiometer (Spring Light Meter, Norristown, PA, USA). All materials were used according to the manufacturer's instructions [Table 1]. The teeth were immediately stored at 100% relative humidity for 24 h at 37°C.[15],[16]
Table 1: Materials, compositions, and manufacturer's instructions

Click here to view


After this period, all teeth were serially cut in X and Y axis using a metallographic cutter (IsoMet 1000, Buehler Ltd., Lake Bluff, IL, USA) under water, creating specimens with 0.7 (±0.2) mm 2 of cross-sectional area. This area was measured with a digital caliper (Mitutoyo Corp., Kanagawa, Japan). Peripheral specimens and those that showed no perpendicular interface were discarded.[17],[18]

Each specimen was fixed with cyanoacrylate glue (LOCTITE®, Henkel) on a microtensile device and tested on a Universal Testing Machine at 1 mm/min crosshead speed.

Data were subjected to analysis of variance (two-way) followed by post hoc Tukey test for pairwise comparison (P < 0.05) with Minitab Statistical Software, version 2007 (Minitab Inc., State College, Pennsylvania, USA).


   Results Top


The bond strength and the respective standard deviations are shown in [Figure 1]. After application of post hoc Tukey test, the results showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the control group and the two experimental groups.
Figure 1: Editing certificate - On the understanding of zinc-oxide eugenol cement use prior to etch-rinse bonding strategies

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


This study evaluated the temporary cement with or without eugenol applied before adhesive procedures. Results showed that none of the cement promoted adverse effects or interfered in the microtensile bond strength (μTBS). These results are corroborated by other authors in the literature.[4],[9] However, the results need to be interpreted with caution due to differences in materials and methodologies used, in special, because some of the studies performed with these cements used microshear and not microtensile tests.

In this study, the microtensile test was performed rather than microshear as, in the last one, the specimen is subjected to tensile at the loading application area and not to shear. Moreover, it has been shown that it is unlikely that this test is accurately testing the interface as the maximum stresses will not be distributed over a larger circular area (all the perimeters of the interface), such as in a torsion test that generates shear stresses at the whole interface.[19] In the tensile test, stresses are much more homogeneous along the interface than in shear, leading to a maximum principal stresses closer to the nominal strength, justifying the election of this test for the present study.[20] Thus, comparisons between our microtensile study with others using microshear tests were made with caution.

Temporary cement with eugenol is pointed out as a cause of adverse effects when using adhesive systems/resin composites [11],[15] as lower μTBS is presented by eugenol cement when compared to eugenol-free cement.[1] On the other hand, several researchers described that none of the cement (ZOE/ZOE-free) caused any adverse effect on evaluated adhesive systems.[4],[8],[9] Dentine bond strength was not affected by temporary cement with eugenol, even when a self-etching adhesive/resin cement was used.[9],[21] It was observed that studies which investigated the effect of eugenol on resin-dentine bond strength considered different time for the cement removal after the first session, which could explain the differences among the studies, apart from applied tests and verified adhesive systems.

To evaluate the effect of the eugenol exposure time of a eugenol-based provisional restorative material on the shear bond strength (SBS) of two-step and one-step self-etching adhesives to dentine, at different intervals, some authors [22] found that prior use of eugenol-containing temporary restorative material reduced self-etch adhesive systems bond strength over a 24-h period. However, no reduction in bond strength at 7 or 14 days exposure was observed with either two-step or one-step self-etch adhesive. This information can explain why the bond strength was not reduced as, in the present study, the time for removal was 7 days after the first session. The negative results after 24 h were also reported by other authors [7] who did not recommend the use of this cement prior resin-based materials application. In their study, after 24 h, the ZOE restoration was mechanically removed, and dentine surfaces were ultrasonically cleaned. Their results showed that despite the prior use of eugenol-contained temporary restoration affected the resin-dentine bond strength of the etch-rinse Single Bond, a more pronounced reduction in bond strength was observed for the two self-etch systems evaluated (iBond, Clearfil SE Bond).[7] The authors of the present study agree that these results need to be interpreted with caution as the use of temporary cement in clinics usually surpasses the 24-h sealing period.

ZOE cement is not stable in the presence of excess water, and it is clinically reasonable to consider the water used for manipulation as well as the water present in dentine after tooth preparation and cleaning. This is one of the main reasons (including low wear abrasion) why it has life and applicability limits as definitive cement: It probably dissolves in the present fluid, percolating due to lack of sealing.[23]

The use of temporary cement with eugenol could affect the interaction success between adhesive systems and dental structure and also the polymerization of resin composite or resin cement.[7],[24] This noninteraction could lead to a bond strength reduction to self-etch adhesive systems [7] as eugenol can slightly suppress the polymerization of the resin composite [21] or, in fact, inhibit polymerization, due to its extreme affinity with free radicals.[25] On the other hand, some authors [1] found no interaction evidence between the temporary cement with eugenol and adhesive systems. Some others, additionally, emphasized that the temporary cement removal type and method (hand scaler for 10 s, prophylaxis with pumice-water slurry for 10 s, and a jet of aluminum oxide for 10 s) may affect the adhesion of resin-bonded indirect restorations.[26]

Use of acid conditioner for temporary cement cleaning was also reported as bond strengths reducer.[12] However, the use of etching in the present study was not particularly investigated, but it seemed not to affect final results. In this study, the type of temporary cement removal was mechanical; prophylaxis with pumice-water slurry was conducted and followed by dental etching before the adhesive procedure. In this way, under these same experimental conditions, none of the cements affected the μTBS.

In a study,[27] which investigated the bond strength to dentine of primary teeth after using pulpotomy agents and some ZOE, powder: liquid (P:L) ratios showed that bond strength was affected by the agents and the ZOE P:L but not by the applied adhesive systems, which were Primer and Bond NT and OptiBond Solo Plus. The same findings were reported by other authors [9] who investigated the bond strength of six self-etching adhesives (AdheSE, Adper Prompt L-Pop, Clearfil SE Bond, iBond, OptiBond Solo Plus-Self-Etch Adhesive System, and Xeno III) with a universal resin composite in cavities previously cemented with ZOE. When considering Freegenol and Fermit, some others [28] found that they seemed to have beneficial effects on the SBS values of Syntax and Art Bond. In this referred study, the only bonding system which produces acceptably high average SBS values with eugenol-containing provisional cement was P-Bond.

In summary, the recommendation or not to use ZOE cement needs to be based on the resting period after the first session. Clinicians, as well as researchers, when working in an office and/or in the universities (also teaching), need to explore this topic and recommendations with caution and avoid material misuse. None of the cement interfered in the μTBS of resin composite and dentine when used with etch-rinse adhesive material, considering the recommended resting period after the first session.


   Conclusions Top


The authors recommend the removal of the temporary cementation, at least, 7 days after the first session and suggest that the clinicians follow-up further studies to use these cement in case, their removal is recommended within a longer period.

Financial support and sponsorship

We thank CNPq #310001/07-2 PhD-Technical Scholarship for the financial support.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Ribeiro JC, Coelho PG, Janal MN, Silva NR, Monteiro AJ, Fernandes CA, et al. The influence of temporary cements on dental adhesive systems for luting cementation. J Dent 2011;39:255-62.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Perdigão J, Lopes M. The effect of etching time on dentin demineralization. Quintessence Int 2001;32:19-26.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Koch T, Peutzfeldt A, Malinovskii V, Flury S, Häner R, Lussi A, et al. Temporary zinc- oxide eugenol cement: Eugenol quantity in dentin and bond strength of resin composite. Eur J Oral Sci 2013;121:363-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Abo-Hamar SE, Federlin M, Hiller KA, Friedl KH, Schmalz G. Effect of temporary cements on the bond strength of ceramic luted to dentin. Dent Mater 2005;21:794-803.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Fiori-Júnior M, Matsumoto W, Silva RA, Porto-Neto ST, Silva JM. Effect of temporary cements on the shear bond strength of luting cements. J Appl Oral Sci 2010;18:30-6.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U, Taschner M, Petschelt A, Nikolaenko SA. Adhesive luting revisited: Influence of adhesive, temporary cement, cavity cleaning, and curing mode on internal dentin bond strength. J Adhes Dent 2007;9 Suppl 2:269-73.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Carvalho CN, de Oliveira Bauer JR, Loguercio AD, Reis A. Effect of ZOE temporary restoration on resin-dentin bond strength using different adhesive strategies. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007;19:144-52.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Erkut S, Küçükesmen HC, Eminkahyagil N, Imirzalioglu P, Karabulut E. Influence of previous provisional cementation on the bond strength between two definitive resin-based luting and dentin bonding agents and human dentin. Oper Dent 2007;32:84-93.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E. Influence of eugenol-containing temporary cement on bonding of self-etching adhesives to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2006;8:31-4.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Chieffi N, Sadek F, Monticelli F, Goracci C, Grandini S, Davidson C, et al. Effect of dentin adhesives used as sealers and provisional cementation on bond strength of a resin cement to dentin. Am J Dent 2006;19:91-5.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Leirskar J, Nordbø H. The effect of zinc-oxide eugenol on the shear bond strength of a commonly used bonding system. Endod Dent Traumatol 2000;16:265-8.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Latta MA, Kelsey WP, Murdock CM. Effects of adhesive liner and provisional cement on the bond strength of nickel/chrome/beryllium alloy cemented to dentin. Quintessence Int 2005;36:817-23.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Perdigão J, Sezinando A, Gomes G. Microtensile bond strengths and interfacial examination of a polyalkenoate-based one-step adhesive. Am J Dent 2011;24:215-20.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Pashley DH, Tao L, Boyd L, King GE, Horner JA. Scanning electron microscopy of the substructure of smear layers in human dentine. Arch Oral Biol 1988;33:265-70.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Kim J, Mai S, Carrilho MR, Yiu CK, Pashley DH, Tay FR, et al. An all-in-one adhesive does not etch beyond hybrid layers. J Dent Res 2010;89:482-7.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Manfro AR, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Imparato JC, Raggio DP. Effect of different concentrations of chlorhexidine on bond strength of primary dentin. Pediatr Dent 2012;34:e11-5.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Carrilho MR, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Rodrigues Filho LE. Bond strength of four adhesive systems to dentin. Pesqui Odontol Bras 2002;16:251-6.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Perdigão J, Fundingsland JW, Duarte S Jr., Lopes M. Microtensile adhesion of sealants to intact enamel. Int J Paediatr Dent 2005;15:342-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Xavier TA, Meira JB, Rodrigues FP, Lima RG, Ballester RY. Finite element analysis of shear versus torsion adhesive strength tests for dental resin composites. J Adhes Sci Technol 2009;23:1575-89.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Braga RR, Meira JB, Boaro LC, Xavier TA. Adhesion to tooth structure: A critical review of “macro” test methods. Dent Mater 2010;26:e38-49.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Carvalho EM, Carvalho CN, Loguercio AD, Lima DM, Bauer J. Effect of temporary cements on the microtensile bond strength of self-etching and self-adhesive resin cement. Acta Odontol Scand 2014;72:762-9.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Nasreen F, Guptha AB, Srinivasan R, Chandrappa MM, Bhandary S, Junjanna P, et al. An in vitro evaluation of effect of eugenol exposure time on the shear bond strength of two-step and one-step self-etching adhesives to dentin. J Conserv Dent 2014;17:280-4.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
23.
Darvell B. Materials Science for Dentistry. 9th ed. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing; 2009. p. 688.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
He LH, Purton DG, Swain MV. A suitable base material for composite resin restorations: Zinc oxide eugenol. J Dent 2010;38:290-5.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Fujisawa S, Kadoma Y. Action of eugenol as a retarder against polymerization of methyl methacrylate by benzoyl peroxide. Biomaterials 1997;18:701-3.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Fonseca RB, Martins LR, Quagliatto PS, Soares CJ. Influence of provisional cements on ultimate bond strength of indirect composite restorations to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2005;7:225-30.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Salama FS. Influence of zinc-oxide eugenol, formocresol, and ferric sulfate on bond strength of dentin adhesives to primary teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2005;6:14-21.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Paul SJ, Schärer P. Effect of provisional cements on the bond strength of various adhesive bonding systems on dentine. J Oral Rehabil 1997;24:8-14.  Back to cited text no. 28
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Maristela Dutra-Correa
Rua Dr. Bacelar, 1212, 4° andar, São Paulo
Brazil
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_302_16

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


    Abstract
   Introduction
   Subjects and Methods
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusions
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed410    
    Printed12    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded27    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal