International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE S1 ( Supplement Issue, 2020 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Comparison of Different Dentin Deproteinizing Agents on the Shear Bond Strength of Resin-bonded Dentin

Ramsa Khan, Naren Sharma, Kamal Garg, Mohammad Aleemuddin

Citation Information :

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1877

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: To assess and analyze the resin-bonded dentin in terms of shear bond strength after using deproteinizing agents 5% sodium hypochlorite, 10% sodium hypochlorite, and bromelain. Materials and methods: Overall 140 permanent and intact human premolars were split into four groups, three experimental groups and one control group. In all four groups, the occlusal surface of the teeth was wet ground to expose superficial dentin. In group I, teeth were etched and deproteinized with 5% sodium hypochlorite. In group II, teeth were etched and deproteinized with 10% sodium hypochlorite. In group III, teeth were etched and bromelain was used to deproteinize. In group IV, teeth were etched and no deproteinization was being performed and simultaneous fulfillment of the resin composite and later inserted into the plastic tube and polymerized with light. Samples were stored at 37°C for 24 hours and the later samples were transferred to the universal testing machines to shear bond strength analysis at a speed of 0.5 mm/minute. Results: The outcome of the bond strength was significantly influenced by the application of bromelain enzymes. A remarkable difference was observed between the shear bond strength of sodium hypochlorite (5 and 10%) and in the bromelain enzyme-treated group. Group III showed better results than group I and group II. Conclusion: This study concluded that bromelain shear has the maximum value for shear bond strength. Bond strength improved because of removal of unsupported collagen fiber with bromelain enzyme after acid etching. Clinical significance: Natural pineapple enzyme, i.e., bromelain improves bond strength by removal of unsupported collagen fiber. Hence, it is completely safe to use.


PDF Share
  1. Hassan A, Goda A, Baroudi K. The effect of different disinfecting agents on bond strength of resin composites. Int J Dent 2014;2014:231235.
  2. Ravi Kumar N, Shankar P, Indira R. Shear bond strength of 2 dentin bonding agents with 2 desentitizers: an in vitro study. JCD 2011;14:247–251.
  3. Xiong Y, Chen J, Wang H. Evaluation of shear bond strength and microleakage of deproteinized dentin bonded with three total-etch adhesives systems. Int Chin J Dent 2006; 6:82–88.
  4. Ghonaim AMR, Abdel Mohsen M, Elkassas D. The effect of deproteinization surface on the microshear bond strength to dentin. Med J Cairo Univ 2014. 31–35.
  5. Chauhan K, Basavanna RS, Shivanna V. Effect of bromealin enzyme for dentin deproteinization on bond strength of adhesive system. J Conserv Dent 2015;18(5):360–363. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.164029.
  6. Dayem RN, Tameesh MA. A new concept in hybridization: bromelain enzyme for deproteinizing dentin before application of adhesive system. Contemp Clin Dent 2013;14(4):421–426. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.123015.
  7. Taldoeano M, Moura P, Ossario E, et al. Bonding efficacy of an acetone/based etch and rinse adhesive after dentin deproteinization. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Buccal 2012;17(4):649–654. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.17717.
  8. Bhattacharyya, Barun K. Bromelain: an overview. Nat Prod Rad 2008;7(4):359–363.
  9. Mountouris G, Silikas N, Eliades G. Effect of sodium hypochlorite treatment on the comparison of shear bond morphology of human coronal dentin. J Adhes Dent 2004;6(3):175–182.
  10. Bhandary S, Hedge NM. An evaluation and comparison of shear bond strength of composite resin to dentin, using newer dentin bonding agents. JCD 2008;11(2):71–75. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.44054.
  11. Pavan R, Jain S, Shraddha. Properties and therapeautic application of bromelain.an overview. Biotechnol Res Int. 2012;2012:976203. DOI: 10.1155/2012/976203.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.