HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 131, No 2, 179-183. © 2000 American Dental Association

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by ROBERTS, H. W. Articles by MILLS, S. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by ROBERTS, H. W. Articles by MILLS, S. E. Related Collections Restoratives

Background. In response to concerns of bacterial biofilm colonization of dental unit waterlines, a wide range of commercial intermittent and continuous chemical treatments for dental unit waterlines have been developed and marketed. There has been little research on the possible effect of continuous chemical treatment regimens on dentin-bonding agents. The authors evaluate the effect of four proposed antimicrobial agents used in dental unit waterlines on dentin bond strength.

Methods. The authors used a fifth-generation dentin-bonding agent to bond composite cylinders to molar dentin surfaces. They then used selected antimicrobial agents as rinsing agents after conditioning. The composite cylinders were shear tested, and their fracture strengths were compared statistically.

Results. All proposed antimicrobial agents reduced dentin bond strength. Proposed waterline treatment regimens of a diluted mouthrinse and chlorhexidine significantly reduced dentin bond strength compared with sodium hypochlorite and citric acid regimens.

Conclusion. Dental professionals should be aware of potential interactions between dental unit waterline antimicrobial agents and dentin-bonding agents. Further research in this area is warranted, as the clinical implications are uncertain at this time.

Clinical Implications. Dental unit waterline antimicrobial agents may adversely affect dentin bonding strength.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. V. Ritter, E. Ghaname, and R. H. Leonard The influence of dental unit waterline cleaners on composite-to-dentin bond strengths J Am Dent Assoc, July 1, 2007; 138(7): 985 - 991. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. J. Schel, P. D. Marsh, D. J. Bradshaw, M. Finney, M. R. Fulford, E. Frandsen, E. Ostergaard, J. M. ten Cate, W. R. Moorer, A. Mavridou, et al. Comparison of the Efficacies of Disinfectants To Control Microbial Contamination in Dental Unit Water Systems in General Dental Practices across the European Union Appl. Envir. Microbiol., February 1, 2006; 72(2): 1380 - 1387. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. A. VON FRAUNHOFER and S. C. SIEGEL Using chemomechanically assisted diamond bur cutting for improved efficiency J Am Dent Assoc, January 1, 2003; 134(1): 53 - 58. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. B. LINGER, J. A. MOLINARI, W. C. FORBES, C. F. FARTHING, and W. J. WINGET Evaluation of a hydrogen peroxide disinfectant for dental unit waterlines J Am Dent Assoc, September 1, 2001; 132(9): 1287 - 1291. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. S. KNIGHT, S. B. DAVIS, and J. G. McROBERTS The effect of a dental unit waterline treatment regimen on the shear bond strength of resin-based composite J Am Dent Assoc, May 1, 2001; 132(5): 615 - 619. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. E. MILLS THE DENTAL UNIT WATERLINE CONTROVERSY: DEFUSING THE MYTHS, DEFINING THE SOLUTIONS J Am Dent Assoc, October 1, 2000; 131(10): 1427 - 1441. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]