Article

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

ABSTRACT

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

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.
    No preview · Article · Apr 2014 · Clinical Oral Investigations
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cervical interfacial bonding quality has been a matter of deep concern. The purpose of this study was to analyze microtensile bond strength (MTBS) and cervical interfacial gap distance (IGD) of bulk-fill vs incremental-fill Class II composite restorations. Box-only Class II cavities were prepared in 91 maxillary premolars (n = 7) with gingival margin placement 1 mm above the cementoenamel junction at one side and 1 mm below it on the other side. Eighty-four maxillary premolars were divided into self-etch and total-etch groups and further subdivided into six restorative material subgroups used incrementally and with an open-sandwich technique: in group 1, Tetric Ceram HB (TC) as a control; group 2, Tetric EvoFlow (EF); group 3, SDR Smart Dentin Replacement (SDR); group 4, SonicFill (SF); group 5, Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill (TN); and group 6, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TE). Groups 2-6 were bulk-fill restoratives. Tetric N-Bond Self-Etch (se) and Tetric N-Bond total-etch (te) adhesive were used in subgroups 1-5, whereas AdheSE (se) and ExciTE F (te) were used in subgroup 6. In an additional group, Filtek P90 Low Shrink Restorative (P90) was used only with its corresponding self-etch bond. The materials were manipulated, light-cured (1600 mW/cm(2)), artificially aged (thermal and occlusal load-cycling), and sectioned. Two microrods/restoration (n = 14/group) were tested for MTBS at a crosshead-speed of 0.5 mm/min (Instron testing machine). Fracture loads were recorded (in Newtons), and MTSBs were calculated (in megapascals). Means were statistically analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test, Conover-Inman post hoc analysis for MTBS (multiple comparisons), and Mann-Whitney U test for IGD. The ends of the fractures were examined for failure mode. One microrod/restoration (n = 7/group) was investigated by scanning electron microscopy (×1200) for IGD. MTBS values for SF/te, P90 in enamel, and TC+SDR/te in enamel and cementum were significantly higher compared with those for the control TC/te and TC/se in cementum. Most of the failures were mixed. IGDs were generally smaller at enamel margins, and the smallest IGDs were found in P90 at both enamel and cementum margins. Bulk-fill and silorane-based composites might provide better cervical interfacial quality than incremental-fill restorations.
    Full-text · Article · Jul 2015 · Operative Dentistry