The effects of various mouth rinses on enamel bond strength of a universal adhesive system

Muhammet Kerim Ayar

doi:10.2298/VSP220405082A

Muhammet Kerim Ayar Usak University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Usak, Turkey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/VSP220405082A

Keywords: adhesives, dental enamel, essential oils, mouthwashes

Abstract

Background/Aim. Although essential oil-containing mouth rinses have some advantages, it is not well-known what effects they have on the bond strength of the universal resin adhesives system to the enamel. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of essential oil-containing mouth rinses on the enamel bond strength of the universal adhesive system. Methods. A total of 96 bovine incisors were used in the study. The teeth were divided into four different groups according to the control group and three different mouth rinses: Group I (Control) – distilled water, Group II – Listerine Cool Mint (essential oil mouth rinse), Group III – Kloroben (0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate mouth rinse), and Group IV – Oxyfresh (0.05% sodium fluoride mouth rinse). Each group was divided into two subgroups according to the application mode of the universal adhesive (etch-and-rinse mode or self-etch mode) (n = 12). Mouth rinses were applied daily for 30 sec to the enamel surfaces for a month, and the samples were soaked in distilled water. After the shear bond strength (SBS) tests were performed with the universal test machine at a speed of 1 mm/min, the SBS data were statistically analyzed (p = 0.05). Results. Two-way ANOVA showed that the enamel bond strength of universal adhesive was not affected by mouth rinse and was significantly affected by the application mode. Conclusion. The use of essential oil-containing mouth rinses and other mouth rinses tested in the study is safe in terms of the quality of enamel bonding of the tested adhesive.

References

1. Zewdu T, Abu D, Agajie M, Sahilu T. Dental caries and associated factors in Ethiopia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Prev Med 2021; 26(1): 21.

2. Parkinson CR, Hara AT, Nehme M, Lippert F, Zero DT. A randomised clinical evaluation of a fluoride mouthrinse and dentifrice in an in situ caries model. J Dent 2018; 70: 59–66.

3. Murthy AK, Fareed N. Economic evaluation of school-based caries preventive programs: A systematic review. Community Dent Health 2020; 37(3): 205–15

4. Charugundla BR, Anjum S, Mocherla M. Comparative effect of fluoride, essential oil and chlorhexidine mouth rinses on dental plaque and gingivitis in patients with and without dental caries: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Dent Hyg 2015; 13(2): 104–9.

5. Jassoma E, Baeesa L, Sabbagh H. The antiplaque/anticariogenic efficacy of Salvadora persica (Miswak) mouthrinse in comparison to that of chlorhexidine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health 2019; 19(1): 64.

6. Cortelli JR, Cogo K, Aquino DR, Cortelli SC, Ricci-Nittel D, Zhang P, et al. Validation of the anti-bacteremic efficacy of an essential oil rinse in a Brazilian population: a cross-over study. Braz Oral Res 2012; 26(5): 478‒84.

7. Mankodi S, Ross NM, Mostler K. Clinical efficacy of listerine in inhibiting and reducing plaque and experimental gingivitis. J Clin Periodontol 1987; 14(5): 285–8.

8. Amini P, Araujo MWB, Wu MM, Charles CA, Sharma NC. Comparative antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacy of three antiseptic mouthrinses: a two week randomized clinical trial. Braz Oral Res 2009; 23(3): 319–25.

9. Pan P, Barnett ML, Coelho J, Brogdon C, Finnegan MB. Determination of the in situ bactericidal activity of an essential oil mouthrinse using a vital stain method. J Clin Periodontol 2000; 27(4): 256–61.

10. Zheng CY, Wang ZH. Effects of chlorhexidine, listerine and fluoride listerine mouthrinses on four putative root-caries pathogens in the biofilm. Chin J Dent Res 2011; 14: 135–40.

11. Pereira JR, Pamato S, Vargas M, Junior NF. State of the Art of Dental Adhesive Systems. Curr Drug Deliv 2018; 15(5): 610–9.

12. Rosa WL, de O da Piva E, Silva AF. Bond strength of universal adhesives: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2015; 43(7): 765–76.

13. Nakamichi I, Iwaku M, Fusayama T. Bovine teeth as possible substitutes in the adhesion test. J Dent Res 1983; 62(10): 1076‒81.

14. Reis AF, Giannini M, Kavaguchi A, Soares CJ, Line SR. Comparison of microtensile bond strength to enamel and dentin of human, bovine, and porcine teeth. J Adhes Dent 2004; 6(2): 117–21.

15. Pouyanfar H, Tabaii ES, Aghazadeh S, Nobari SPTN, Imani MM. Microtensile Bond Strength of Composite to Enamel Using Universal Adhesive with/without Acid Etching Compared To Etch and Rinse and Self-Etch Bonding Agents. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2018; 6(11): 2186–92.

16. McLean DE, Meyers EJ, Guillory VL, Vandewalle KS. Enamel Bond Strength of New Universal Adhesive Bonding Agents. Oper Dent 2015; 40(4): 410–7.

17. Suzuki T, Takamizawa T, Barkmeier WW, Tsujimoto A, Endo H, Erickson RL, et al. Influence of Etching Mode on Enamel Bond Durability of Universal Adhesive Systems. Oper Dent 2016; 41(5): 520–30.

18. Sharpe AN. Influence of the crystal orientation in human enamel on its reactivity to acid as shown by high resolution microradiography. Arch Oral Biol 1967; 12(5): 583–92.

19. Elzuhery H, Ola Ibrahim F, Inas AE, Mohamed AE, Ali IA. Bond strength and morphological interface of self-etching adhesives to demineralized and remineralized enamel. J Dent Sci 2013; 8(3): 287‒95.

20. Lindemuth JS, Hagge MS. Effect of universal testing machine crosshead speed on the shear bond strength and bonding failure mode of composite resin to enamel and dentin. Mil Med 2000; 165(10): 742‒6.

21. Demir A, Malkoc S, Sengun A, Koyuturk AE, Sener Y. Effects of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine mouth rinses on the bond strength of an orthodontic composite. Angle Orthod 2005; 75(3): 392–6.