{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.039486673247778874, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0029615004935834156, 'mean_word_length': 4.761363636363637, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 2, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Microtensile bond strength of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives to artificially created carious dentin.

This article evaluates a pH-cycling model for simulation of caries-affected and caries-infected dentin (CAD and CID, respectively) surfaces, by comparing the bond strength of an etch-and-rinse and a self-etch adhesive system. For both adhesives, bonding to sound dentin (SD) showed that the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) values of SD, CAD, and CID were SD > CAD > CID (P < 0.05). Knoop microhardness number mean values followed the same trend. Adhesive systems were not able to totally penetrate into CAD and CID, forming more irregular resin-dentin interdiffusion zones and atypical resin tags than SD. The tested in vitro pH-cycling caries model allowed the evaluation of specific dentin substrate alterations in response to μTBS. The type of dentin and its histological structure played an important role in etch-and-rinse and self-etch bonding, as lower μTBS values were attained in CAD and CID.