RESEARCH ARTICLE

Influence of Intraoral Temperature and Relative Humidity

on the Dentin Bond Strength: An in Situ Study
LETÍCIA O. SARAIVA, DDS, MS*, THAIANE R. AGUIAR, DDS, MS, PhD†, LEONARDO COSTA, DDS, MS‡,
ANDREA N. CAVALCANTI, DDS, MS, PhD‡, MARCELO GIANNINI, DDS, MS, PhD†,
PAULA MATHIAS, DDS, MS, PhD§

ABSTRACT
Statement of the Problem: The effect of the intraoral environment during adhesive restorative procedures remains a
concern, especially in the absence of rubber dam isolation.
Objective: To evaluate the temperature and relative humidity (RH) at anterior and posterior intraoral sites and their
effects on the dentin bond strength of two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive systems.
Methods: Sixty human molars were assigned to six groups according to the adhesive systems (Adper Single Bond Plus
and One Step Plus) and intraoral sites (incisor and molar sites). The room condition was used as a control group.
Dentin fragments were individually placed in custom-made acetate trays and direct composite restorations were
performed. The intraoral temperature and RH were recorded during adhesive procedures. Then, specimens were
removed from the acetate trays and sectioned to obtain multiple beams for the microtensile bond strength test. In
addition, the adhesive interface morphology was evaluated through scanning electron microscopy. Intraoral conditions
were statistically analyzed by paired Students’ t-tests and the bond strength data by two-way analysis of variance and
Tukey test (α = 0.05).
Results: The posterior intraoral site showed a significant increase in the temperature and RH when compared with the
anterior site. However, both intraoral sites revealed higher temperatures and RH than the room condition. In regards
to the adhesive systems, the intraoral environment did not affect the bond strength, and the One Step Plus system
showed the highest bond strength means.
Conclusion: Despite the fact that remarkable changes in the intraoral conditions were observed for both anterior and
posterior sites, the intraoral environment was not able to compromise the immediate dentin bond strength.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Some conditions of intraoral temperature and relative humidity may not impair the dentin bond strength of two-step
etch-and-rinse adhesive systems. Thus, an adequate relative isolation seems to be a good alternative under the specific
clinical conditions in which rubber dam isolation is either impossible or very difficult to perform.
(J Esthet Restor Dent ••:••–••, 2014)

INTRODUCTION resin-based dental materials. Although in-vitro studies

provide important information regarding the physical
The clinical success of adhesive restorations represents and biomechanical properties of these materials, in-vivo
a valuable parameter to evaluate the effectiveness of scenarios can affect the clinical outcomes because of

*Private practice, Salvador, BA, Brazil

†
Postdoctoral research associate, Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, IL, USA
‡
Professor, Department of Integrated Clinic Rehabilitation, School of Dentistry, Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health (EBMSP), Salvador, BA, Brazil
§
Associate professor, Department of Clinical Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, BA, Brazil

© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI 10.1111/jerd.12098 Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry Vol •• • No •• • ••–•• • 2014 1
 INTRAORAL EFFECTS ON THE DENTIN BOND STRENGTH Saraiva et al.

interoperator variations, patient behaviors, and the MATERIALS AND METHODS

intraoral environment.1,2
Specimen Preparation
Intraoral sites appear to be related to changes in the
mechanical load, temperature, and saliva flow.1 After the protocol approved by the local Ethics
Additionally, studies have showed that the temperature Committee (n.38/07, CAAE 0019.0.368.000 −07 FR
and the relative humidity (RH) may have negative 144816), 60 sound extracted human third molars were
effects on the performance of adhesive restorative collected and pumiced. Occlusal enamel and root were
materials.3–8 Temperature and RH are usually simulated removed using double-faced diamond discs (#7020, KG
in experimental chamber devices; however, some Sorensen, Barueri, SP, Brazil) under constant water
differences may be expected from the oral environment. irrigation. To standardize the smear layer, the occlusal
Thus, adhesive restorations performed in the oral cavity dentin surfaces were abraded (#600-grit SiC papers)
may provide a more accurate understanding of the under water irrigation for 60 seconds. Then, dental
temperature and RH effects on intraoral sites. fragments were sterilized in an autoclave at 121°C for
40 minutes at 1 atm pressure (Practical 12 L,
With dental tissues, extrinsic sources of moisture, such Odontobrás, Ribeirão Preto, SP,
as the intraoral humidity, may impair the dentin Brazil).15
bonding mechanism. The moisture level of the
demineralized dentin can promote the collapse or
over-wet of collagen fibrils and hence affect the Experimental Groups
resin-dentin infiltration.9–11 In addition, simplified
etch-and-rinse systems might form semipermeable Specimens were randomly divided into six groups
membranes even after curing, allowing water diffusion according to the adhesive system and intraoral
and fluid accumulation through the adhesive interface, environment (upper incisor, molar sites and room
which may jeopardize the bonding durability.12 condition [control group]). Two-step etch-and-rinse
adhesive systems were selected based on their solvent
Some studies simulated extreme conditions of content (Adper Single Bond Plus, ethanol-based; and
temperature and RH (35–37°C and 80–100% RH) to One Step Plus, acetone-based). Details of adhesive
evaluate the adhesive properties of resin-based systems’ composition and manufacturers are described
materials.4–7,13 However, none of these investigations in Table 1.
evaluated the effect of temperature and RH in different
intraoral sites, whereas composite restorations were
performed under clinical scenarios. Only one clinical TABLE 1. The manufacturers’ composition and batch
trial compared the type of field isolation (absolute or number of adhesive systems
relative) on the clinical performance of restorations for Adhesive systems Composition (batch number)
noncervical carious lesions; however, no significant Adper Single Bond Plus bis-GMA, HEMA, UDMA,
differences were observed after 1 year.14 Thus, the aim (3 M/ESPE, St. Paul, MN, ethyl alcohol, water, glycerol
of this in situ study was to evaluate the temperature USA) 1,3 dimethacrylate,
copolymer of acrylic and
and RH at anterior and posterior intraoral sites (upper itaconic acids, water, silane
incisor and molar) and their effects on the dentin bond treated silica (5FE).
strength of two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive systems. One Step Plus (Bisco, Inc., bis-GMA, BPDM, HEMA,
The null hypothesis tested was that the intraoral Schaumburg, IL, USA) acetone, photo-initiator,
environment (temperature and RH) would not dental glass (0700003585)

influence the dentin bond strength for both anterior bis-GMA = bisphenol A diglycidyl methacrylate; BPDM = biphenyl
and posterior intraoral sites when compared with a dimethacrylate; HEMA = 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate;
UDMA = diurethane dimethacrylate.
control group.

2 Vol •• • No •• • ••–•• • 2014 Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry DOI 10.1111/jerd.12098 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
 INTRAORAL EFFECTS ON THE DENTIN BOND STRENGTH Saraiva et al.
Bonding Procedures
To reproduce the intraoral environment, custom-made
acetate trays were prepared for the upper central
incisors and the first molar region. Dentin fragments
were individually fixed in the acetate tray with glue
(Interneed Ind. Com. Ltd, São Paulo, SP, Brazil) and
positioned in the anterior or posterior site. The
restorative procedures were performed under relative
isolation with cotton rolls placed in the buccal vestibule
and gauze over the tongue (Figure 1). The in situ
procedures were carried out on 3 successive days and
only during the morning, as changes in the dental office
environment may affect the relative air humidity.16
In addition, the volunteer’s diet was controlled during
the experiment days to avoid possible alterations of his
intraoral condition. The volunteer was instructed to
avoid fluid intake for 2 hours before the restorative
procedure and advised to avoid salty and spicy food to
reduce fluid intake during the experimental study
period.
The two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive systems were
used after dentin etching with 35% phosphoric acid for
15 seconds, then rinsed with water. The excess water
was removed with absorbent papers, leaving the dentin
visibly moist. Adhesive systems were applied according
to the manufacturers’ instructions and were light-cured
for 10 seconds (Optilight 600, Gnatus, Ribeirão Preto,
SP, Brazil). Afterwards, a 6-mm-thick layer of composite
resin was incrementally placed over the dentin surface
(Filtek Z350, 3 M ESPE, Irvine, CA, USA), and each
increment was light-cured for 40 seconds. Then,
specimens were stored for 48 hours at 100% RH at
37°C.
FIGURE 1. The custom-made
acetate trays used to fix the dentin
fragments in anterior (A) and
posterior (B) sites to reproduce the
intraoral conditions during the
adhesive restorative procedures.
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI 10.1111/jerd.12098
To monitor the intraoral experimental conditions, the
temperature and RH were recorded for incisor and
molar sites during the adhesive procedures using a
digital thermo-hygroscope (MTH—1361, Minipa Ind.
Com. Ltd, São Paulo, SP, Brazil). The bonding
procedures for the control group were similar to
intraoral sites; however, these procedures were
performed at ambient room conditions to simulate the
external environment of a dental clinic.6 Both the
temperature and the RH of the ambient room were also
recorded during bonding procedures. The temperature
and RH data were individually analyzed by paired
Student’s t-test at a 95% confidence level.
Microtensile Bond Strength
Nine of 10 specimens were used for the microtensile
bond strength test. After 48 hours of restorative
procedures, specimens were longitudinally sectioned in
buccal-lingual and mesiodistal directions with a
diamond blade (11–4244, Buehler, Lake Buff, IL, USA)
under constant water cooling to obtain multiple bonded
beams with a cross-sectional area of 0.8 mm2. For each
tooth, six beams from the inner region of the
restoration were selected and individually measured
with a digital caliper (727–6/150, Starret, Itu, SP, Brazil)
to calculate the bonded area.
Beams were fixed to the grips of a microtensile device
using cyanoacrylate glue (Super Bonder; Henckel
Loctite, Itapevi, SP, Brazil) and stressed to failure under
tension in a universal testing machine (4411, Instron
Corp, Canton, UK) at a crosshead speed of
0.5 mm/minute until failure. Bond strength data (MPa)
were calculated, and the statistical analysis was
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry Vol •• • No •• • ••–•• • 2014 3
 INTRAORAL EFFECTS ON THE DENTIN BOND STRENGTH Saraiva et al.
performed using two-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and Tukey test, at a 95% confidence level.
Failure Mode Analysis
Fractured surfaces of tested specimens were dried and
mounted on aluminum stubs and sputter-coated with
gold (Balzers-SCD 050 Sputter Coater, Fürstentum,
Liechtenstein). Ultrastructure observations were
performed in the scanning electron microscope (JSM
5900, JEOL, Peabody, MA, USA) at ×500 to ×2,000
magnifications. Failure patterns were classified into one
of four categories as described as follows:17
Type 1: adhesive failure between bonding system and
dentin, and partially cohesive failure within the
layer of adhesive system;
Type 2: cohesive failure within adhesive resin;
Type 3: partially cohesive failure within dentin;
Type 4: partially cohesive failure within composite
resin or adhesive failure between composite
resin and adhesive system.
Morphology of the Bonded Interface
To investigate the morphology of the dentin-resin
bonded interface, one specimen from each group was
sectioned in a mesiodistal direction, obtaining three
2-mm-thick slices. These slices were ground using SiC
abrasive papers (#600, 1200, and 2,000-grit) under
running water and polished with soft cloths and
diamond pastes (6, 3, and 1 and ¼ μm). Afterwards,
specimens were demineralized with 37% phosphoric
acid solution for 5 seconds, washed with distilled water,
and deproteinized with a 5% sodium hypochlorite
solution for 5 minutes. Then, specimens were dried,
gold sputter-coated, and observed in the scanning
electron microscope at ×1,500 magnifications.
RESULTS
Temperature and RH
The temperature and RH measurements for
experimental intraoral conditions and room condition
4 Vol •• • No •• • ••–•• • 2014 Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
TABLE 2. Mean (SD) of the temperature (°C) and relative
humidity (%)
Incisor site Molar site Room
condition
Temperature 26.18 (1.77) b* 27.28 (1.35) a* 21.10
Relative humidity 84.84 (3.84) b* 90.79 (5.87) a* 50.30
Distinct letters indicate statistically significant differences for each
row (Student’s t-test, α = 5%). Asterisks denote statistically significant
differences between intraoral sites (incision and molar) when
compared with reference value (room condition).
(control) are shown in Table 2. Because the room
conditions did not change, those temperature and RH
data were used as a reference value (21.10°C and 50.30%
RH). Significant statistical differences were observed for
the temperature and RH among the experimental
conditions (p < 0.01). Significant higher temperatures
and RH were found at molar site when compared with
the incisor site. However, the room condition
demonstrated significantly lower temperatures and RH
than both the incisor and the molar intraoral sites.
Microtensile Bond Strength
The statistical interaction between the main factors
studied—“adhesive system” and “experimental
condition”—was not significant (p = 0.63). Thus, the
effects of these factors were evaluated separately
(Table 3). There were no significant differences in
dentin bond strengths among experimental conditions
(room versus incisor versus molar sites) for either
adhesive system (p = 0.67). However, dentin bond
strengths were significantly higher for One Step Plus
than for Adper Single Bond Plus in all experimental
conditions (p = 0.001).
Failure Pattern Mode
The distribution of failure patterns is depicted in
Figure 2. Representative photomicrographs of each
failure are illustrated in Figure 3. Adhesive failure (type
1) was the most predominant failure for all groups,
followed by type 4 and type 2. Interestingly, the highest
percentage of cohesive failure within adhesive resin
(type 2) was observed in the molar site for both
DOI 10.1111/jerd.12098 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

TABLE 3. Mean (SD) of the dentin bond strength (MPa) at the different experimental conditions
Adhesive Systems
Adper Single Bond Plus
One Step Plus
Distinct upper and lower case letters indicate statistically significant differences within each row and column, respectively (two-way analysis of
variance/Tukey test, α = 5%).
FIGURE 2. Distribution of failure
patterns among experimental groups.
adhesive systems (Adper Single Bond Plus: 23%; and
One Step Plus: 28%). A lower percentage of type 3
(partially cohesive failure within dentin) was noted in
both groups restored at the incisor site (Adper Single
Bond Plus: 5%; and One Step Plus: 2%).
Morphology of the Bonded Interface
Representative images of the resin-dentin interface were
depicted in Figure 4. Both adhesive systems showed an
authentic hybrid layer with long and dense resin tags.
DISCUSSION
In this investigation, the choice of an in situ analysis
aimed to assess the effect of temperature and RH on
the bond strength of adhesive systems to dentin in
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI 10.1111/jerd.12098
INTRAORAL EFFECTS ON THE DENTIN BOND STRENGTH Saraiva et al.
Experimental conditions
Incisor site Molar site Room condition
23.01 (6.47) Ab 22.70 (6.04) Ab 20.17 (7.55) Ab
29.69 (4.90) Aa 27.67 (4.77) Aa 29.02 (5.82) Aa
conditions that were close to clinical scenarios. For this
purpose, restorative procedures were conducted on
dentin fragments fixed in an acetate tray and placed in
the upper incisor or molar region of a volunteer.
Changes in the temperature and RH were observed
between intraoral environments; however, the dentin
bond strength was not affected by the intraoral
environment. Thus, the null hypothesis was accepted.
Moisture control during adhesive procedures is
essential to achieve adequate bond to dental tissues. In
some clinical conditions, the use of rubber dam
isolation is difficult, if not impossible (i.e., technique
issues, patients’ intolerance). Therefore, adequate
relative isolation should be considered in these clinical
situations.14,18,19 Regarding the use of rubber dam
isolation, the intraoral temperature and RH were
compared to the dental surgery conditions.16 In this
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry Vol •• • No •• • ••–•• • 2014 5
 INTRAORAL EFFECTS ON THE DENTIN BOND STRENGTH Saraiva et al.

FIGURE 3. A, Photomicrography
representing failure type 1 (Adper
Single Bond Plus [SB], intraoral
condition, molar region).
B, Photomicrography representing
failure type 2 (One Step Plus [OSP],
intraoral condition, molar region).
C, Photomicrography representing
failure type 3 (OSP, intraoral
condition, incisor region).
D, Photomicrography representing
failure type 4 (SB, ambient condition).
AS = adhesive system;
CR = composite resin; D = dentin;
HL = bottom of the hybrid layer;
TAG = extensions of adhesive system.

FIGURE 4. Representative images

illustrating the adhesive interface of
Adper Single Bond Plus A, and One
Step Plus B. Scanning electron
microscopy micrograph shows the
hybrid layer (asterisks) and long resin
tags (arrows) for both adhesive
systems.

study, rubber dam isolation was compared with the scenarios.16,20 In addition, it seems that the elevated and
room environment, which showed a lower temperature constant humidity level present in the chamber may
(21.1°C) than incisor and molar sites. impair water evaporation.

In addition, reduced dentin bond strength under
extreme temperature and RH conditions were
previously reported.4,5,7,16,20 Nonetheless, the
temperature and RH found did not affect the dentin
bond strength. A possible explanation for such
divergent results is that they are related to the use of a
constant temperature/humidity chamber. During
inhalation and exhalation, the oral cavity might become
drier, whereas the constant temperature/humidity
chamber cannot replicate the natural inhalation, down
time, and exhalation cycles presented in clinical
Although this study did not attempt to record the
temperature and RH after the beginning of each
restorative procedure, Kameyama and colleagues21
demonstrated significant alterations in the temperature
and RH during the 20 minutes recorded. Moreover, the
intraoral conditions may be highly unstable and
influenced by environmental weather conditions.
Two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive systems seem to be
more affected by temperature and RH conditions than
self-etching adhesive systems.4,20 This susceptibility may

6 Vol •• • No •• • ••–•• • 2014 Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry DOI 10.1111/jerd.12098 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
 INTRAORAL EFFECTS ON THE DENTIN BOND STRENGTH Saraiva et al.
be due to the hydrophilic nature of simplified systems,
which increases permeability and allows for fluid
movements within the interface adhesive.22,23 Although
the bond strength of both two-step etch-and-rinse
adhesive systems tested were not influenced by the
temperature and RH, the acetone-based system showed
higher bond strength than the ethanol-based system.
These findings are in accordance with previous
studies.24,25 It can be attributed to the greater ability of
acetone to join and evaporate the water in the
demineralized collagen (high vapor
pressure = 200 mmHg), which leads to achieving
optimal bond strength when excess water remains after
the etching step.
The failure pattern distribution varied according to the
experimental conditions. The most common failure for
restorations performed under room conditions and at
the incisor site was the adhesive one (type 1). Under
higher temperature and RH as observed in the molar
region, type 2 and type 4 were also highly frequent.
Increased RH may lead to microscopic water
condensation on the dentin surface and impair the
polymerization of resin-based materials.26 Therefore, we
can speculate that the dentin surface was contaminated
during the application of the adhesive systems, which
may have increased the adhesive and cohesive failures
within the adhesive. On the other hand, it seems that if
contamination had occurred during the composite resin
insertion, predominant cohesive failures in the resin or
between the composite and the adhesive layer might
have occurred.
Furthermore, the use of dry-field techniques
provided a reduction in the intraoral temperature and
RH.21 Although the present study was performed in
situ, the use of an acetate tray may have led to the
partial retention of the RH from the gingival and
teeth area. This could be observed by the presence of
fog formation inside the tray (see Figure 1). Thus,
higher RH may be found in the in vivo environment
(i.e., gingival crevicular fluid, saliva, and blood
contamination). In addition, in this investigation, the
adhesive procedures were performed in only one
patient to standardize the intraoral conditions.
However, differences between patients’ oral
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI 10.1111/jerd.12098
environments should be considered in further
studies.
Although adequate relative isolation is a good
alternative to adhesive aesthetic anterior
restorations,27,28 the contamination of the operative field
with fluids can easily occur in the absence of rubber
dam isolation. This study demonstrated that the
intraoral temperature and RH did not influence the
immediate dentin bond strength of two-step
etch-and-rinse adhesive systems. This is particularly
relevant for those specific clinical conditions in which
the use of rubber dam isolation is restricted; however,
long-term studies should evaluate the potential impact
of intraoral environments on the durability of adhesive
restorations.
CONCLUSION
Considering the limitations of the present study, the
intraoral temperature and RH in the molar site were
higher when compared with the incisor site; however,
the differences in intraoral environments did not affect
the immediate dentin bond strength of two-step
etch-and-rinse adhesive systems.
DISCLOSURE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors do not have any financial interest in the
companies whose materials are included in this article.
This study was partially supported by CAPES, Brazil.
REFERENCES
1. Bayne SC. Correlation of clinical performance with “in
vitro tests” of restorative dental materials that use
polymer-based matrices. Dent Mater 2012;28:52–71.
2. Mutluay MM, Yahyazadehfar M, Ryou H, et al. Fatigue of
the resin-dentin interface: a new approach for evaluating
the durability of dentin bonds. Dent Mater
2013;29:437–49.
3. Burrow MF, Taniguchi Y, Nikaido T, et al. Influence of
temperature and relative humidity on early bond
strengths to dentine. J Dent 1995;23:41–5.
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry Vol •• • No •• • ••–•• • 2014 7
 INTRAORAL EFFECTS ON THE DENTIN BOND STRENGTH Saraiva et al.
4. Miyazaki M, Rikuta A, Tsubota K, et al. Influence of
environmental conditions on dentin bond strengths of
recently developed dentin bonding systems. J Oral Sci
2001;43:35–40.
5. Besnault C, Attal JP. Influence of a simulated oral
environment on dentin bond strength of two adhesive
systems. Am J Dent 2001;14:367–72.
6. Besnault C, Attal JP. Influence of a simulated oral
environment on microleakage of two adhesive systems in
Class II composite restorations. J Dent 2002;30:1–6.
7. Chiba Y, Miyazaki M, Rikuta A, Moore BK. Influence of
environmental conditions on dentin bond strengths of
one-application adhesive systems. Oper Dent
2004;29:554–9.
8. Jacquot B, Durand JC, Farge P, et al. Influence of
temperature and relative humidity on dentin and enamel
bonding: a critical review of the literature. Part 1.
Laboratory studies. J Adhes Dent 2012;14:433–46.
9. Tay FR, Gwinnett AJ, Wei SH. The overwet phenomenon:
a transmission electron microscopic study of surface
moisture in the acid-conditioned, resin-dentin interface.
Am J Dent 1996;9:161–6.
10. Manso AP, Marquezini L Jr, Silva SM, et al. Stability of
wet versus dry bonding with different solvent-based
adhesives. Dent Mater 2008;24:476–82.
11. Grégoire G, Guignes P, Nasr K. Effects of dentine
moisture on the permeability of total-etch and one-step
self-etch adhesives. J Dent 2009;37:691–9.
12. Tay FR, Frankenberger R, Krejci I, et al. Single-bottle
adhesives behave as permeable membranes after
polymerization. I. In vivo evidence. J Dent
2004;32:611–21.
13. Werner JF, Tani C. Effect of relative humidity on bond
strength of self-etching adhesives to dentin. J Adhes Dent
2002;4:277–82.
14. Daudt E, Lopes GC, Vieira LC. Does operatory field
isolation influence the performance of direct adhesive
restorations? J Adhes Dent 2013;15:27–32.
15. Dominici JT, Eleazer PD, Clark SJ, et al.
Disinfection/sterilization of extracted teeth for dental
student use. J Dent Educ 2001;65:1278–80.
16. Plasmans PJ, Creugers NH, Hermsen RJ, Vrijhoef MM.
Intraoral humidity during operative procedures. J Dent
1994;22:89–91.
17. Figueiredo Reis A, Giannini M, Ambrosano GM, Chan
DC. The effects of filling techniques and a low-viscosity
8 Vol •• • No •• • ••–•• • 2014 Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
composite liner on bond strength to class II cavities.
J Dent 2003;31:59–66.
18. Ritter AV. Posterior resin-based composite restorations:
clinical recommendations for optimal success. J Esthet
Restor Dent 2001;13:88–99.
19. Felippe LA, Monteiro S Jr, De Andrada CA, et al. Clinical
strategies for success in proximoincisal composite
restorations. Part I: understanding color and composite
selection. J Esthet Restor Dent 2004;16:336–47.
20. Nystrom GP, Holtan JR, Phelps RA 2nd, et al.
Temperature and humidity effects on bond strength of a
dentinal adhesive. Oper Dent 1998;23:138–43.
21. Kameyama A, Asami M, Noro A, et al. The effects of
three dry-field techniques on intraoral temperature
and relative humidity. J Am Dent Assoc 2011;142:
274–80.
22. Malacarne J, Carvalho RM, de Goes MF, et al. Water
sorption/solubility of dental adhesive resins. Dent Mater
2006;22:973–80.
23. Cadenaro M, Antoniolli F, Sauro S, et al. Degree of
conversion and permeability of dental adhesives. Eur J
Oral Sci 2005;113:525–30.
24. Reis A, Loguercio AD, Azevedo CL, et al. Moisture
spectrum of demineralized dentin for adhesive systems
with different solvent bases. J Adhes Dent 2003;5:
183–92.
25. Reis A, Loguercio AD, Carvalho RM, Grande RH.
Durability of resin dentin interfaces: effects of surface
moisture and adhesive solvent component. Dent Mater
2004;20:669–76.
26. Jacobsen T, Söderholm KJ. Some effects of water on
dentin bonding. Dent Mater 1995;11:132–6.
27. Russell MD, Gulfraz M, Moss BW. In vivo measurement
of colour changes in natural teeth. J Oral Rehabil
2000;27:786–92.
28. Mathias P, Rocha V, Saraiva L, et al. Intraoral
environment conditions and their influence on marginal
leakage in composite resin restorations. Acta Odontol
Latinoam 2010;23:105–10.
Reprint requests: Paula Mathias, DDS, MS, PhD, Department of Clinical
Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, BA,
Brazil., Av. Araújo Pinho, 62, Canela, Salvador 40110-150, Brazil;
Tel.: 55-71-3336-5776; Fax: 55-71-3336-5976;
email: pmathias@yahoo.com
DOI 10.1111/jerd.12098 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.