Introduction
Materials and methods
Prestudy: Illustrating the morphological effects caused by different CAP compositions
-
1) Specimens were conditioned using a standard etch-and-rinse system: acid etching (Transbond XT, 3M, Saint Paul, MN, USA; 30 s, 35% phosphoric acid), water rinsing (20 s), air drying (20 s, oil-free air spray).
-
2) Specimens were conditioned using pure argon CAP (kINPen MED, neoplas tools GmbH, Greifswald, Germany); treatment time was 30 s per specimen.
-
3) Specimens were conditioned using argon CAP with 0.5% oxygen admixture (kINPen MED, neoplas tools GmbH, Greifswald, Germany); treatment time was 30 s per specimen.
-
4) Specimens were conditioned using argon CAP with 1% oxygen admixture (kINPen MED, neoplas tools GmbH, Greifswald, Germany); treatment time was 30 s per specimen.
-
5) Specimens were left untreated after polishing.
Main study: Determining the shear bond strength
-
Group I (n = 25): the enamel was conditioned using a standard etch-and-rinse system: acid etching (Transbond XT, 3M, Saint Paul, MN, USA; 30 s, 35% phosphoric acid), water rinsing (20 s), air drying (20 s, oil-free air spray).
-
Group II (n = 25): the enamel was not conditioned prior to the application of the primer.
-
Group III (n = 25): the enamel was conditioned using pure argon CAP (kINPen MED, neoplas tools, Greifswald, Germany); treatment time was 30 s per specimen.
-
Group IV (n = 25): the enamel was conditioned using argon CAP with 0.5% oxygen admixture (kINPen MED, neoplas tools, Greifswald, Germany); treatment time was 30 s per specimen.
-
Group V (n = 25): the enamel was conditioned using argon CAP with 0.5% oxygen admixture (kINPen MED, neoplas tools, Greifswald, Germany); treatment time was 30 s per specimen; after CAP application the enamel was rewetted with deionized water.
Results
Prestudy: Illustrating the morphological effects caused by different CAP compositions
-
1) Etching with 35% phosphoric acid resulted in the substantial change and degradation of the enamel surface structure, exposing the prismatic structures with microporosities along the enamel crystallites (Fig. 1).
-
2) After the application of pure argon CAP, specimens showed surface alterations like shallow grooves, resulting from the differential dissolution of enamel prisms among prismatic and aprismatic enamel (Fig. 2a–d).
-
3) The application of argon CAP with 0.5% oxygen admixture resulted in shallow grooves with decreased quantity, distribution and intensity compared with enamel treated with pure argon CAP (Fig. 2e,f).
-
4) After the application of argon CAP with 1% admixture of oxygen, the enamel surface appeared unaffected and smooth (Fig. 2g,h).
-
5) Polished, untreated enamel showed a smooth surface (Fig. 2i,j).
-
In this preclinical study, bovine enamel specimens can be substituted for human enamel specimens to gain more insight into CAP-based enamel conditioning.
-
We chose not to increase the oxygen admixture to more than 0.5% in our main study to ensure good visibility and precise application of the plasma effluent.
Main study: Determining the shear bond strength
Group | n | Mean | 95% CI | SD | Median | IQR | Shapiro–Wilk | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | Statistic | p-value | ||||||
I | 25 | 3.53 | 3.25 | 3.81 | 0.71 | 3.47 | 0.70 | 0.894 | 0.093 ns |
II | 14 | 0.24 | 0.16 | 0.31 | 0.14 | 0.20 | 0.12 | 0.848 | 0.021* |
III | 25 | 1.73 | 1.28 | 2.18 | 1.15 | 1.39 | 1.46 | 0.930 | 0.305 ns |
IV | 25 | 2.16 | 1.81 | 2.51 | 0.90 | 2.15 | 1.22 | 0.951 | 0.581 ns |
V | 25 | 4.96 | 4.57 | 5.36 | 1.00 | 4.94 | 1.20 | 0.921 | 0.229 ns |
Group | n | Mean | 95% CI | SD | Median | IQR | Shapiro–Wilk | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | Statistic | p-value | ||||||
I | 25 | 0.54 | 0.51 | 0.57 | 0.09 | 0.54 | 0.09 | 0.912 | 0.167 ns |
II | 14 | −0.69 | −0.81 | −0.56 | 0.24 | −0.71 | 0.26 | 0.964 | 0.793 ns |
III | 25 | 0.14 | 0.03 | 0.26 | 0.30 | 0.14 | 0.43 | 0.970 | 0.874 ns |
IV | 25 | 0.30 | 0.23 | 0.37 | 0.18 | 0.33 | 0.27 | 0.952 | 0.595 ns |
V | 25 | 0.69 | 0.65 | 0.72 | 0.09 | 0.69 | 0.11 | 0.930 | 0.303 ns |
Mean ± SD | Statistic | Df1 | Df2 | p-value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group I | Group II | Group III | Group IV | Group V | ||||
0.54 ± 0.09B | −0.69 ± 0.24D | 0.14 ± 0.30C | 0.30 ± 0.18C | 0.69 ± 0.09A | 126.43 | 4 | 46.28 | < 0.001* |
Groups | Mean difference | 95% CI | Statistic | p-value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | ||||
I–II | −1.22 | −1.43 | −1.02 | 18.678 | < 0.001* |
I–III | −0.39 | −0.58 | −0.21 | 6.333 | < 0.001* |
I–IV | −0.24 | −0.35 | −0.13 | 6.093 | < 0.001* |
I–V | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.22 | 5.901 | < 0.001* |
II–III | 0.83 | 0.58 | 1.08 | 9.527 | < 0.001* |
II–IV | 0.99 | 0.77 | 1.20 | 13.604 | < 0.001* |
II–V | 1.37 | 1.17 | 1.58 | 20.861 | < 0.001* |
III–IV | 0.16 | −0.04 | 0.35 | 2.235 | 0.188 ns |
III–V | 0.54 | 0.36 | 0.72 | 8.674 | < 0.001* |
IV–V | 0.39 | 0.27 | 0.50 | 9.764 | < 0.001* |