Medical and Dental Consultantsí Association of Nigeria
Home - About us - Editorial board - Search - Ahead of print - Current issue - Archives - Submit article - Instructions - Subscribe - Advertise - Contacts - Login 
  Users Online: 601   Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 19  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 242-247

Effect of whitening toothpastes on bonding of restorative materials to enamel of primary teeth

Department of Oral Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence Address:
Dr. F Y Abdelmegid
Department of Oral Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, P. O. Box 60169, Riyadh 11545
Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: Authors would like to thank the College of Dentistry Research Center and Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for funding this research project, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/1119-3077.164333

Rights and Permissions

Objective: The aim of this in vitro investigation was to measure shear bond strength (SBS) of a resin composite and a resin-modified glass ionomer to enamel of primary teeth after application of different whitening toothpastes (WTs). Materials and Methods: Eighty labial enamel surfaces of primary incisors were randomly distributed into 8 groups of 10 each according to the surface treatment and bonding material. G1 and G2, control (brushed with water without WT); G3 and G4, (brushed with Colgate Optic White WT [Colgate-Palmolive Company, New York, NY, USA]), G5 and G6, (brushed with Crest Pro-Health Whitening WT [Procter and Gamble, Cincinnati, OH, USA]) and G7 and G8, (brushed with Arm and Hammer Advance White Extreme Whitening with Stain Defense WT [Church and Dwight Co., Princeton, NJ, USA]). SBS was measured at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min and the type of bond failure was assessed using a stereomicroscope. Results: There was significant difference between SBS of composite resin in groups 1, 3, 5, and 7 (P < 0.001), but no difference between resin-modified glass ionomer in groups 2, 4, 6, and 8 (P < 0.056). SBS of group 1 (control) was greater than groups 3, 5, and 7. There was a significant difference between group 1 and group 2 as well as group 7 and group 8 (P < 0.001). Conclusions: WTs affect SBS of resin composite, but not resin-modified glass ionomer to enamel of primary teeth. No difference of failure modes between different groups of tested materials.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded464    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal