Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 163–169 | Cite as

Zinc oxide eugenol paste jeopardises the adhesive bonding to primary dentine

  • C. W. PiresEmail author
  • T. L. Lenzi
  • F. Z. M. Soares
  • R. O. Rocha
Original Scientific Article
  • 135 Downloads

Abstract

Aim

This was to evaluate the influence of root canal filling pastes on microshear bond strength (µSBS) of an adhesive system to primary dentine.

Methods

Human (32) primary molars were randomly assigned into four experimental groups (n = 8): zinc oxide eugenol paste (ZOE); iodoform paste (Guedes-Pinto paste); calcium hydroxide paste thickened with zinc oxide; and no filling paste (control). Flat dentine surfaces were covered with a 1 mm-thick layer of the pastes for 15 min at 37 °C. The pastes were mechanically removed from dentine surfaces, followed by rinsing and drying. After adhesive application (Adper Single Bond 2, 3M ESPE), starch tubes were placed over pre-treated dentine and filled with composite resin (Z250, 3M ESPE). The µSBS test was performed after 24 h of water storage at 37 °C. The failure mode was evaluated using a stereomicroscope. The µSBS values (MPa) were analysed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests (α = 0.05).

Results

The lowest µSBS values were achieved when ZOE was used. No difference was found among other filling pastes compared with control group. All specimens showed adhesive/mixed failures.

Conclusions

Zinc oxide eugenol paste negatively influenced the bond strength of adhesive systems to primary dentine. Iodoform-based Guedes-Pinto paste and calcium hydroxide paste thickened with zinc oxide did not influence the microshear bond strength values.

Keywords

Root canal filling materials Primary teeth Pulpectomy Calcium hydroxide Iodoform paste 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants (primary human teeth) were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Research Ethics Committee—register number: 45105415.9.0000.5346) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

The extracted teeth used in this study came from a tooth bank at the Dental School of the Federal University of Santa Maria. Thus, the research subjects were not contacted in person, since the registration of the teeth and their respective donors is carried out by the tooth bank, which respects the principles of autonomy, justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence.

References

  1. Ajaj R, Al-Mutairi S, Ghandoura S. Effect of eugenol on bond strength of adhesive resin: a systematic review. OHDM. 2014;13(4):950–8.Google Scholar
  2. American Academy on Pediatric Dentistry Clinical Affairs Committee—Pulp Therapy Subcommittee. Guideline on pulp therapy for primary and immature permanent teeth. Pediatr Dent. 2016a;38:280–8.Google Scholar
  3. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Clinical affairs committee—restorative dentistry subcommittee. Guideline on pediatric restorative dentistry. Pediatr Dent. 2016b;38(6):250–62.Google Scholar
  4. Barja-Fidalgo F, Moutinho-Ribeiro M, Oliveira MA, de Oliveira BH. A systematic review of root canal filling materials for deciduous teeth: is there an alternative for zinc oxide-eugenol? ISRN Dent 2011;367318.Google Scholar
  5. Berg JH, Croll TP. Glass ionomer restorative cement systems: an update. Pediatr Dent. 2015;37(2):116–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergoli AD, Primosch RE, de Araujo FB, Ardenghi TM, Casagrande L. Pulp therapy in primary teeth—profile of teaching in Brazilian dental schools. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2010;35(2):191–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bharuka SB, Mandroli PS. Single- versus two-visit pulpectomy treatment in primary teeth with apical periodontitis: a double-blind, parallel group, randomized controlled trial. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2016;34(4):383–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Brustolin JP, Mariath AAS, Ardenghi TM, Casagrande L. Survival and factors associated with failure of pulpectomies performed in primary teeth by dental students. Braz Dent J. 2017;28:121–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Carvalho CN, 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(3):144–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cerqueira DF, Mello-Moura AC, Santos EM, Guedes-Pinto AC. Cytotoxicity, histopatological, microbiological and clinical aspects of an endodontic iodoform-based paste used in pediatric dentistry: a review. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2008;32:105–10.Google Scholar
  11. Courson F, Bouter D, Ruse ND, Degrange M. Bond strengths of nine current dentine adhesive systems to primary and permanent teeth. J Oral Rehabil. 2005;32(4):296–303.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunston B, Coll JA. A survey of primary tooth pulp therapy as taught in US dental schools and practiced by diplomats of the American Board of Pediatric Dentistry. Pediatr Dent. 2008;30(1):42–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. el-Kalla IH, García-Godoy F. Fracture strength of adhesively restored pulpotomized primary molars. ASDC J Dent Child. 1999;66:238–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gillen BM, Looney SW, Gu LS, et al. Impact of the quality of coronal restoration versus the quality of root canal fillings on success of root canal treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod. 2011;37(7):895–902.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Heintze SD, Rousson V. Pooling of dentin microtensile bond strength data improves clinical correlation. J Adhes Dent. 2011;13(2):107–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hommez GM, Coppens CR, De Moor RJ. Periapical health related to the quality of coronal restorations and root fillings. Int Endod J. 2002;35(8):680–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hume WR. An analysis of the release and the diffusion through dentin of eugenol from zinc oxide-eugenol mixtures. J Dent Res. 1984;63(6):881–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kielbassa AM, Atti T, Hellwig E. Diffusion behavior of eugenol from zinc oxide-eugenol mixture through human and bovine dentin in vitro. Oper Dent. 1997;22(1):15–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Koch T, Peutzfeldt A, Malinovskii V, et al. Temporary zinc oxide-eugenol cement: eugenol quantity in dentin and bond strength of resin composite. Eur J Oral Sci. 2013;121(4):363–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lenzi TL, Guglielmi C, de A, Arana-Chavez, Raggio VE. DP. Tubule density and diameter in coronal dentin from primary and permanent human teeth. Microsc Microanal. 2013;19(6):1445–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Macchi RL, Capurro MA, Herrera CL, Cebada FR, Kohen S. Influence of endodontic materials on the bonding of composite resin to dentin. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1992;8(1):26–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Montagner AF, Skupien JA, Borges MF, et al. Effect of sodium hypochlorite as dentinal pretreatment on bonding strength of adhesive systems. Indian J Dent Res. 2015;26(4):416–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Mortazavi M, Mesbahi M. Comparison of zinc oxide and eugenol, and Vitapex for root canal treatment of necrotic primary teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2004;14(6):417–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Moskovitz M, Sammara E, Holan G. Success rate of root canal treatment in primary molars. J Dent. 2005;33(1):41–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Nadkarni U, Damle SG. Comparative evaluation of calcium hydroxide and zinc oxide eugenol as root canal filling materials for primary molars: a clinical and radiographic study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2000;18(1):1–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Nor JE, Feigal RJ, Dennison JB, Edwards CA. Dentin bonding: SEM comparison of the resin-dentin interface in primary and permanent teeth. J Dent Res. 1996;75(6):1396–403.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Nor JE, Feigal RJ, Dennison JB, Edwards CA. Dentin bonding: SEM comparison of the dentin surface in primary and permanent teeth. Pediatr Dent. 1997;19(4):246–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Prabhakar AR, Bedi S. Effect of glutaraldehyde and ferric sulfate on shear bond strength of adhesives to primary dentin. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2008;26(3):S109–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Primosch RE, Ahmadi A, Setzer B, Guelmann M. A retrospective assessment of zinc oxide-eugenol pulpectomies in vital maxillary primary incisors successfully restored with composite resin crowns. Pediatr Dent. 2005;27(6):470–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Queiroz AM, Assed S, Consolaro A, et al. Subcutaneous connective tissue response to primary root canal filling materials. Braz Dent J. 2011;22:203–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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(3):14–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Shalan H, Awad S, El-Fallal AA. Influence of pulpotomy medicaments on the ultrastructure and shear bond strength of a self-etch adhesive to primary tooth dentin. Quintessence Int. 2012;43(6):517–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Silva NR, Calamia CS, Coelho PG, et al. Effect of 2% iodine disinfecting solution on bond strength to dentin. J Appl Oral Sci. 2006;14(6):399–404.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Silva JPL, Queiroz DM, Azevedo LH, et al. Effect of eugenol exposure time and post-removal delay on the bond strength of a self-etching adhesive to dentin. Oper Dent. 2011;36(1):66–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Smaïl-Faugeron V, Courson F, Durieux P, et al. Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;8:CD003220.Google Scholar
  36. Sumikawa DA, Marshall GW, Gee L, Marshall SJ. Microstructure of primary tooth dentin. Pediatr Dent. 1999;21(7):439–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Tedesco TK, Montagner AF, Skupien JA, et al. Starch tubing: an alternative method to build up microshear bond test specimens. J Adhes Dent. 2013;15(4):311–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Tuloglu N, Sen TE, Ozer S, Bayrak S. Shear bond strength of self-adhering flowable composite on dentin with and without application of an adhesive system. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2014;12(2):97–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Meerbeek B, Peumans M, Poitevin A, et al. Relationship between bond-strength tests and clinical outcomes. Dent Mater. 2010;26(2):e100–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Windley W 3rd, Ritter A, Trope M. The effect of short-term calcium hydroxide treatment on dentin bond strengths to composite resin. Dent Traumatol. 2003;19(2):79–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Zulfikaroglu BT, Atac AS, Cehreli ZC. Clinical performance of Class II adhesive restorations in pulpectomized primary molars: 12-month results. J Dent Child (Chic). 2008;75(1):33–43.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. W. Pires
    • 1
    Email author
  • T. L. Lenzi
    • 2
  • F. Z. M. Soares
    • 3
  • R. O. Rocha
    • 4
  1. 1.University Center of Serra GaúchaCaxias do SulBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Surgery and OrthopedicsFederal University of Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Restorative DentistryFederal University of Santa MariaSanta MariaBrazil
  4. 4.Department of StomatologyFederal University of Santa MariaSanta MariaBrazil

Personalised recommendations