Effect of Different Dentin Desensitizing Agents on Bond Strength and Dentin Morphology in Eroded Cervical Dentin

 

Salvato in:
Dettagli Bibliografici
Autori: Barcena-Taco, Jaime, Lea-Condori, César A., Pumahualcca-Coila, Diana D., Borda Bizaga, Jorge A., Castro-Núñez, Gabriela M., Escalante-Otárola, Wilfredo G., Escalante Otárola, Wilfredo
Natura: artículo original
Status:Versión publicada
Data di pubblicazione:2026
Descrizione:This study evaluates the effect of different dentin desensitizing agents on the bond strength of a universal adhesive system applied using the self-etch strategy to eroded cervical dentin, as well as their impact on dentin morphology. A total of 100 bovine teeth were sectioned, and standardized dentin specimens were obtained. Erosion was simulated with hydrochloric acid and a daily acid/abrasive challenge using orange juice and abrasive toothpaste for 7 days. Five groups (n=20) were formed according to the desensitizing agent applied: Clinpro White Varnish (sodium fluoride/tricalcium phosphate varnish; 3M), MI Varnish (CPP-ACP/sodium fluoride varnish; GC), Fluor Protector (fluorosilane varnish; Ivoclar), Shield Force Plus (light-cured resin-based desensitizer; Tokuyama), and Desensibilize KF 2% (potassium nitrate/sodium fluoride gel; FGM; active control). Half of the specimens were analyzed via scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to evaluate precipitate formation and the percentage of open dentinal tubules. The remaining samples underwent microtensile bond strength (μTBS) testing with a universal adhesive. Data were analyzed using ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, and respective post-hoc tests (α=5%). The active control showed the highest overall bond strength (55.85±2.85 MPa), whereas Clinpro showed the highest bond strength among the tested desensitizing agents (51.80±3.69 MPa). MI Varnish presented the lowest bond strength (36.89±2.03 MPa) (p<0.05). Fluor Protector significantly reduced the percentage of open dentinal tubules compared with MI Varnish (p<0.05). Despite the higher descriptive prevalence of surface precipitate scores observed with MI Varnish, Fluor Protector, and Shield Force Plus, no significant improvement in adhesion was observed. The findings highlight the importance of selecting dentin desensitizing agents that ensure both substrate protection and adequate bonding to eroded dentin.
Stato:Portal de Revistas UCR
Istituzione:Universidad de Costa Rica
Repositorio:Portal de Revistas UCR
Lingua:Inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:portal.revistas.ucr.ac.cr:article/6156
Accesso online:https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/rOdontos/article/view/6156
Keyword:Dentina; Adhesivos dentales; Erosión dental; Barnices; Microscopía electrónica de barrido.
Dentin; Dental adhesives; Tooth erosion; Varnishes; Scanning electron microscopy.