Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T10:51:18.746Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tubule Density and Diameter in Coronal Dentin from Primary and Permanent Human Teeth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2013

Tathiane L. Lenzi ,
Camila de Almeida B. Guglielmi ,
Victor E. Arana-Chavez  and
Daniela P. Raggio
Tathiane L. Lenzi
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Lineu Prestes, 2227, Cidade Universitária, São Paulo 05508-000, Brazil
Camila de Almeida B. Guglielmi
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Lineu Prestes, 2227, Cidade Universitária, São Paulo 05508-000, Brazil
Victor E. Arana-Chavez
Affiliation:
Department of Biomaterials and Oral Biology, School of Dentistry, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Lineu Prestes, 2227, Cidade Universitária, São Paulo 05508-000, Brazil
Daniela P. Raggio*
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Lineu Prestes, 2227, Cidade Universitária, São Paulo 05508-000, Brazil
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: danielar@usp.br
Get access

Abstract

This study compared dentinal tubule density and diameter of human primary and permanent teeth at different depths of the coronal dentin. Crowns of eight primary second molars and eight permanent third molars were serially sectioned into three disks of ~0.5 mm thickness (superficial, middle, and deep layers), perpendicular to the long axis. Tubule density and diameter were evaluated in 2,000× and 3,000× magnifications by scanning electron microscopy. Data obtained were subjected to two-way repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test (α = 0.05). Tubule density was greater in primary teeth compared with permanent ones, regardless of depth (primary: 124,329 ± 43,594 mm2; permanent: 45,972 ± 21,098 mm2). In general, the tubule density increased as the dentin depth increased, except to the superficial and middle layers from permanent teeth. Tubule diameter was larger in the dentin layer close to the pulp chamber (superficial: 2.4 ± 0.07 μm; middle: 3.70 ± 0.06 μm; deep: 4.28 ± 0.04 μm). No difference was observed between primary (3.48 ± 0.81 μm) and permanent teeth (3.47 ± 0.73 μm). The tubule diameter increases as the dentin depth increases for primary and permanent teeth; however, the tubule density is higher in primary teeth.

Keywords

dentinhuman toothmicrostructurescanning electron microscopy
Type
Biomedical and Biological Applications
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 19 , Issue 6 , December 2013 , pp. 1445 - 1449
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arana-Chavez, V.E. & Massa, L.F. (2004). Odontoblasts: The cells forming and maintaining dentine. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 36(8), 1367–1373.Google Scholar
Burrow, M.F., Nopnakeepong, U. & Phrukkanon, S. (2002). A comparison of microtensile bond strengths of several dentin bonding systems to primary and permanent dentin. Dent Mater 18(3), 239–245.Google Scholar
Carrigan, P.J., Morse, D.R., Furst, M.L. & Sinai, I.H. (1984). A scanning electron microscopic evaluation of human dentinal tubules according to age and location. J Endod 10(8), 359–363.Google Scholar
Dourda, A.O., Moule, A.J. & Young, W.G. (1994). A morphometric analysis of the cross-sectional area of dentine occupied by dentinal tubules in human third molar teeth. Int Endod J 27(4), 184–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erhardt, M.C., Toledano, M., Osorio, R. & Pimenta, L.A. (2008). Histomorphologic characterization and bond strength evaluation of caries-affected dentin/resin interfaces: Effects of long-term water exposure. Dent Mater 24(6), 786–798.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fosse, G., Saele, P.K. & Eide, R. (1992). Numerical density and distributional pattern of dentin tubules. Acta Odontol Scand 50(4), 201–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garberoglio, R. & Brannstrom, M. (1976). Scanning electron microscopic investigation of human dentinal tubules. Arch Oral Biol 21(6), 355–362.Google Scholar
Giannini, M., Carvalho, R.M., Martins, L.R., Dias, C.T. & Pashley, D.H. (2001). The influence of tubule density and area of solid dentin on bond strength of two adhesive systems to dentin. J Adhes Dent 3(4), 315–324.Google ScholarPubMed
Hebling, J., Castro, F.L. & Costa, C.A. (2007). Adhesive performance of dentin bonding agents applied in vivo and in vitro. Effect of intrapulpal pressure and dentin depth. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 83(2), 295–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirayama, A. (1990). Experimental analytical electron microscopic studies on the quantitative analysis of elemental concentrations in biological thin specimens and its application to dental science. Shikwa Gakuho 90(8), 1019–1036.Google ScholarPubMed
Hosoya, Y., Nishiguchi, M., Kashiwabara, Y., Horiuchi, A. & Goto, G. (1997). Comparison of two dentin adhesives to primary vs. permanent bovine dentin. J Clin Pediatr Dent 22(1), 69–76.Google ScholarPubMed
Koutsi, V., Noonan, R.G., Horner, J.A., Simpson, M.D., Matthews, W.G. & Pashley, D.H. (1994). The effect of dentin depth on the permeability and ultrastructure of primary molars. Pediatr Dent 16(1), 29–35.Google Scholar
Lopes, M.B., Sinhoreti, M.A., Gonini Junior, A., Consani, S. & McCabe, J.F. (2009). Comparative study of tubular diameter and quantity for human and bovine dentin at different depths. Braz Dent J 20(4), 279–283.Google Scholar
Marshall, G.W. Jr., Marshall, S.J., Kinney, J.H. & Balooch, M. (1997). The dentin substrate: Structure and properties related to bonding. J Dent 25(6), 441–458.Google Scholar
Pashley, D.H. (1989). Dentin: A dynamic substrate—A review. Scanning Microsc 3(1), 161–174; discussion 174–176. Google Scholar
Pashley, D.H. & Carvalho, R.M. (1997). Dentine permeability and dentine adhesion. J Dent 25(5), 355–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reis, C., De-Deus, G., Marins, J., Fidel, S., Fidel, R. & Paciornik, S. (2012). Mapping large extensions of flat dentin through digital microscopy: Introduction to the method and possible applications. J Adhes Dent 14(4), 349–354.Google Scholar
Ricci, H.A., Sanabe, M.E., Costa, C.A. & Hebling, J. (2010). Bond strength of two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive systems to the dentin of primary and permanent teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 35(2), 163–168.Google Scholar
Ruschel, H.C. & Chevitarese, O. (2002). Density and diameter of dentinal tubules of first and second primary human molars—Comparative scanning electron microscopy study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 26(3), 297–304.Google Scholar
Schilke, R., Lisson, J.A., Bauss, O. & Geurtsen, W. (2000). Comparison of the number and diameter of dentinal tubules in human and bovine dentine by scanning electron microscopic investigation. Arch Oral Biol 45(5), 355–361.Google Scholar
Senawongse, P., Harnirattisai, C., Shimada, Y. & Tagami, J. (2004). Effective bond strength of current adhesive systems on deciduous and permanent dentin. Oper Dent 29(2), 196–202.Google Scholar
Soares, F.Z., Rocha Rde, O., Raggio, D.P., Sadek, F.T. & Cardoso, P.E. (2005). Microtensile bond strength of different adhesive systems to primary and permanent dentin. Pediatr Dent 27(6), 457–462.Google ScholarPubMed
Sumikawa, D.A., Marshall, G.W., Gee, L. & Marshall, S.J. (1999). Microstructure of primary tooth dentin. Pediatr Dent 21(7), 439–444.Google Scholar
Uekusa, S., Yamaguchi, K., Miyazaki, M., Tsubota, K., Kurokawa, H. & Hosoya, Y. (2006). Bonding efficacy of single-step self-etch systems to sound primary and permanent tooth dentin. Oper Dent 31(5), 569–576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed