Adhesion of tooth fragment after trauma: effect of adhesion strategy and storage in the rescue box

This study aims to investigate the impact of storage conditions for crown fragments (specifically, whether they were stored within a tooth rescue box or in tap water) on their adhesion to fractured teeth when subjected to two different adhesive systems (namely, total etch and self etch). Sixty maxillary premolars were sectioned to obtain tooth fragments. These fragments were stored briefly (2 hours) and reattached in the following groups: Group 1 (fragments stored in tooth rescue box and reattached with etch and rinse (E&R) technique), Group 2 (fragments stored in tap water and reattached with E&R technique), Group 3 (fragments stored in tooth rescue box and reattached with self-etch (SE) technique), and Group 4 (fragments stored in tap water and reattached SE technique). After reattachment, the bonded tooth fragments underwent thermal cycling (500 cycles, 5–55 ◦C) and bond strength testing using a universal testing machine. Two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s tests were used for bond strength comparison (p ≤ 0.05). A two-parameter Weibull distribution was conducted to evaluate the reliability of the storage medium and adhesion modality on bond strength. The results showed that measured shear bond values (MPa ± Standard deviation (SD); arranged in descending order) for each group were: Group 2 (Tap water/E&R = 6.5 ± 2.1), Group 1 (Rescue box/E&R = 6.0 ± 2.5), Group 4 (Tap water/E&R = 5.1 ± 2.8), and Group 3 (Rescue box/SE = 3.6 ± 3.2). Significant differences were found only between Groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.002). In conclusion, storing crown fragments in a tooth rescue box did not significantly affect the shear bond strength of the restored tooth. However, fragments reattached using the self-etch technique showed comparable shear bond strength but a higher rate of adhesive failures compared to the E&R technique.

Dental trauma; Pediatric dentistry; Adhesion; Adhesive resin; Dental materials; Storage medium; Tooth rescue box

[1] Agouropoulos A, Pavlou N, Kotsanti M, Gourtsogianni S, Tzanetakis G, Gizani S. A 5-year data report of traumatic dental injuries in children and adolescents from a major dental trauma center in Greece. Dental Traumatology. 2021; 37: 631–638.

[2] Bourguignon C, Cohenca N, Lauridsen E, Flores MT, O’Connell AC, Day PF, et al. International association of dental traumatology guidelines for the management of traumatic dental injuries: 1. fractures and luxations. Dental Traumatology. 2020; 4: 314–330.

[3] Munksgaard EC, Jorgensen EHW, Andreasen JO, Andreasen FM. Enamel‐dentin crown fractures bonded with various bonding agents. Dental Traumatology. 1991; 7: 73–77.

[4] Khandelwal P, Srinivasan S, Arul B, Natanasabapathy V. Fragment reattachment after complicated crown‐root fractures of anterior teeth: a systematic review. Dental Traumatology. 2021; 37: 37–52.

[5] Kim MJ, Kim J, Song J, Chung SH, Hyun H. Shear bond strength of different MDP-containing adhesive systems on enamel and dentin from primary teeth. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2021; 45: 186–192.

[6] Josic U, Mazzitelli C, Maravic T, Radovic I, Jacimovic J, Mancuso E, et al. The influence of selective enamel etch and self-etch mode of universal adhesives’ application on clinical behavior of composite restorations placed on non-carious cervical lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dental Materials. 2022; 38: 472–488.

[7] Fehrenbach J, Isolan CP, Münchow EA. Is the presence of 10-MDP associated to higher bonding performance for self-etching adhesive systems? A meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Dental Materials. 2021; 37: 1463–1485.

[8] Filippi C, Kirschner H, Filippi A, Pohl Y. Practicability of a tooth rescue concept—the use of a tooth rescue box. Dental Traumatology. 2008; 24: 422–429.

[9] Filippi C, Krastl G. Dental trauma in sports—behavior at the accident site and prevention through dental splints. Quintessenz Zahnmedizin. 2021; 9: 970–979. (In German)

[10] Asiri AA, Khan R, Alzahrani SS, Haider S, Khan SU-D, Asiri EAM, et al. Comparative analysis of the shear bond strength of flowable self-adhering resin-composites adhesive to dentin with a conventional adhesive. Coatings. 2021; 11: 273.

[11] Brasil Maia G, Pereira RV, Poubel DLDN, Almeida JCF, Dias Ribeiro AP, Rezende LVMDL, et al. Reattachment of fractured teeth using a multimode adhesive: effect of different rewetting solutions and immersion time. Dental Traumatology. 2020; 36: 51–57.

[12] Galo R, Marinho M, Silva Telles PD, Borsatto M. Shear bond strength of the adhesive/dentin interface after different etching protocols. Journal of Conservative Dentistry. 2021; 24: 393–398.

[13] Klimek J, Hellwig E, Ahrens G. Fluoride taken up by plaque, by the underlying enamel and by clean enamel from three fluoride compounds in vitro. Caries Research. 1982; 16: 156–161.

[14] Bechtle S, Habelitz S, Klocke A, Fett T, Schneider GA. The fracture behaviour of dental enamel. Biomaterials. 2010; 31: 375–384.

[15] Karre D, Muppa R, Duddu M, Nallachakrava S. Fracture resistance of reattached fragments using three different techniques with emphasis on vertical grooves and fiber-reinforced composite post: a novel technique. Journal of Conservative Dentistry. 2017; 20: 474–478.

[16] Prabhakar AR, Yavagal CM, Limaye NS, Nadig B. Effect of storage media on fracture resistance of reattached tooth fragments using G-aenial Universal Flo. Journal of Conservative Dentistry. 2016; 19: 250–253.

[17] de Sousa APBR, França K, de Lucas Rezende LVM, do Nascimento Poubel DL, Almeida JCF, de Toledo IP, et al. In vitro tooth reattachment techniques: a systematic review. Dental Traumatology. 2018; 34: 297–310.

[18] Zhang L, Ye N, Aregawi WA, Fok A. Effect of chamfer design on load capacity of reattached incisors. Dental Materials. 2021; 37: 1168–1175.

[19] Chandran R, Rayar S, Ravi A, Haridas K. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of incisor fragments using simple, bevel, internal groove preparation designs and reattached with nanocomposites: an in vitro study. Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences. 2020; 12: S373–S377.

[20] Ismail AM, Bourauel C, ElBanna A, Salah Eldin T. Micro versus macro shear bond strength testing of dentin-composite interface using Chisel and Wireloop Loading Techniques. Dentistry Journal. 2021; 9: 140.

[21] Wagle E, Allred EN, Needleman HL. Time delays in treating dental trauma at a children’s hospital and private pediatric dental practice. Pediatric Dentistry. 2014; 36: 216–221.

[22] Kallel I, Douki N, Amaidi S, Ben Amor F. The incidence of complications of dental trauma and associated factors: a retrospective study. International Journal of Dentistry. 2020; 2020: 1–8.

[23] Filippi A. Behavior at the accident site after a dental trauma. Quintessenz. 2009; 60: 541–545. (In German)

[24] Messias DCF, Turssi CP, Hara AT, Serra MC. Sodium bicarbonate solution as an anti‐erosive agent against simulated endogenous erosion. European Journal of Oral Sciences. 2010; 118: 385–388.

[25] Sullivan R, Rege A, Corby P, Klaczany G, Allen K, Hershkowitz D, et al. Evaluation of a dentifrice containing 8% arginine, calcium carbonate, and sodium monofluorophosphate to prevent enamel loss after erosive challenges using an intra-oral erosion model. Journal of Clinical Dentistry. 2014; 25: A7–A13.

[26] Tsujimoto A, Fischer NG, Barkmeier WW, Latta MA. Bond durability of two-step HEMA-free universal adhesive. Journal of Functional Biomaterials. 2022; 13: 134.

[27] Ernest CP, Holzmeier M, Willershausen B. In vitro shear bond strength of self-etching adhesives in comparison to 4th and 5th generation adhesives. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. 2004; 6: 293–299.

[28] Yaseen SM, Subba Reddy VV. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of two self-etching adhesives (sixth and seventh generation) on dentin of primary and permanent teeth: an in vitro study. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. 2009; 27: 33–38.

[29] Gama LT, Duque TM, Özcan M, Philippi AG, Mezzomo LAM, Gonçalves TMSV. Adhesion to high-performance polymers applied in dentistry: a systematic review. Dental Materials. 2020; 36: e93–e108.