Contemporary adhesives: Marginal adaptation and microtensile bond strength of class II composite restorations

Department of Cariology and Operative Dentistry, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Japan.
American journal of dentistry (Impact Factor: 0.85). 06/2012; 25(3):181-8.
Source: PubMed


To evaluate the marginal adaptation (in terms of % continuous margin) and microtensile bond strength (microTBS) of the enamel and dentin of direct class II composite restorations.
32 standardized class II cavities were prepared with the gingival margin of one box occlusal to the cementum-enamel junction (CEJ) and one gingival floor extended beyond the CEJ. The teeth (n= 8) were restored using one of four adhesive systems [Adper Scotchbond Multi Purpose (SMPP), Adper Scotchbond 1 XT (S1XT), Clearfil SE Bond (CSEB), or Clearfil Tri-S Bond (CTSB)] with incrementally placed composite restorations before being stored in water (24 hours), thermocycled (2,000 cycles, 5 to 55 degrees C) and mechanically loaded (50,000 cycles, 50 N). Marginal adaptation was evaluated by SEM. Additionally, the teeth were sectioned and trimmed to obtain specimens for microTBS testing.
All adhesive systems exhibited "continuous margins" in enamel over 95.4%, whereas "continuous margins" in dentin ranged from 60.2 to 84.8%. CSEB and CTSB yielded significantly more "continuous margins" between the adhesive restoration and dentin than SMPP or S1XT (P< 0.05). The mean microTBSs (MPa) for enamel were 40.5 (SMPP), 37.3 (S1XT), 30.8 (CSEB) and 23.2 (CTSB), and for dentin, they were 37.7 (SMPP), 33.0 (S1XT), 37.3 (CSEB) and 29.0 (CTSB).

Download full-text


Available from: Rena Takahashi,
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of the present study was to investigate the clinical performance of a low-shrinkage silorane-based composite material (Filtek™ Silorane, 3 M-Espe) by comparing it with a methacrylate-based composite material (Ceram•X™, Dentsply DeTrey). A number of 72patients (158 restorations) participated in the study. After 5 years, a total of 107 restorations (52 Filtek™ Silorane, 55 Ceram•X™) in 48 patients were evaluated. Only class II restorations were included. All the restorations were placed by the same dentist, and the restorations were scored by one experienced dentist/evaluator. Materials were applied following the manufacturer's instructions. The primary outcome was marginal adaptation. Secondary outcomes were: marginal discoloration, approximal contact, anatomic form, fracture, secondary caries, and hypersensitivity. After 5 years, no statistically significant differences between the two materials were found in marginal adaptation either occlusally (p = 0.96) or approximally (p = 0.62). No statistically significant differences were found between the two materials in terms of approximal contact, anatomic form, fractures, or discoloration. Secondary caries was found in two teeth (Filtek™ Silorane). One tooth showed hypersensitivity (Ceram•X™). Restorations of both materials were clinically acceptable after 5 years. This study did not find any advantage of the silorane-based composite over the methacrylate-based composite, which indicates that the low-shrinkage of Filtek™ Silorane may not be a determinant factor for clinical success in class II cavities. This paper is the first to evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of a low-shrinkage composite material.
    Clinical Oral Investigations 04/2014; 19(2). DOI:10.1007/s00784-014-1238-x · 2.35 Impact Factor