ABSTRACT Objective:

To evaluate the effect of erosive challenges on the tooth- restoration interface of deciduous teeth treated with different adhesive protocols.

Material and Methods:

Deciduous molars were cut mesiodistally, then embedded, abraded and polished (n=80).

Samples were randomly divided according to the adhesive system used into:

G1 (Adper Single Bond2®, etch-and-rinse), G2 (Universal Single Bond®, self-etching), G3 (OptibondFL®, etch-and-rinse with Fluoride) and G4 (BondForce®, self-etching with Fluoride). After standardized cavity preparation (2 mm diameter x 2 mm depth), adhesive systems were applied and samples were restored (composite resin Z350®). Half of the samples were exposed to erosive/abrasive cycles (n = 10, each adhesive group), and the other half (control group; n = 10) remained immersed in artificial saliva. For microleakage analysis, samples were submersed in methylene blue and analyzed at 40x magnifications. Cross-sectional microhardness (CSMH) was carried out (50 g/5 s) at 25 μm, 50 μm, and 100 μm from the eroded surface and at 25 μm, 75 μm, and 125 μm from the enamel bond interface.

Results:

Regarding microleakage, 7.5% of the samples showed no dye infiltration, 30% showed dye infiltration only at the enamel interface, and 62.5% showed dye infiltration through the dentin-enamel junction, with no difference between groups (p≥0.05). No significant difference was observed in CSMH at different depths (two-way ANOVA, p≥0.05).

Conclusions:

We did not observe significant changes in microleakage or CSMH after erosive/abrasive challenges in deciduous teeth treated with different adhesive protocols (etch-and-rinse and self-etching adhesives, with and without fluoride).