d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1154–1160

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/dema

The adhesive potential of dentin bonding systems assessed using cuspal deflection measurements and cervical microleakage scores Ahmed Sultan, Advan Moorthy, Garry J.P. Fleming ∗ Materials Science Unit, Dublin Dental University Hospital, Lincoln Place, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:

Objectives. To assess the cuspal deflection and cervical microleakage of standardized mesio-

Received 5 February 2014

occluso-distal (MOD) cavities restored with a dimethacrylate resin-based-composite (RBC)

Received in revised form 3 June 2014

placed with one 3-step, one 2-step and three 1-step bonding systems and compared with

Accepted 11 July 2014

the unbound condition. Methods. Forty-eight sound maxillary premolar teeth with standardized MOD cavities were randomly allocated to six groups. Restoration was performed in eight oblique increments

Keywords:

using a quartz-tungsten-halogen (QTH) light curing unit (LCU) with the bonding condition as

Dentin bonding systems

the dependent variable. Buccal and palatal cuspal deflections were recorded post-irradiation

Resin-based composite

using a twin channel deflection measuring gauge at 0, 30, 60 and 180 s. Following restoration,

Cuspal deflection measurement

the teeth were thermocycled, immersed in a 0.2% basic fuchsin dye for 24 h, sectioned and

Cervical microleakage score

examined for cervical microleakage assessment. Results. The mean total cuspal deflection measurements with the one 3-step, one 2-step and three 1-step bonding systems were 11.26 (2.56), 10.95 (2.16), 10.03 (2.05) (Futurabond® DC SingleDose), 6.37 (1.37) (AdperTM PromptTM L-PopTM ), 8.98 (1.34) ␮m (All-Bond SE® ), respectively when compared with the unbound condition (6.46 (1.88) ␮m) The one-way ANOVA of the total cuspal deflection measurements identified statistical differences (p < 0.001) between groups. Cervical microleakage scores significantly increased (p < 0.001) for the negative control (unbound condition) when compared with teeth restored with a bonding system although differences between the bonding systems were evident (p < 0.001). Significance. The cuspal deflection and cervical microleakage protocol reported offers an opportunity to test the bonding technologies available to practitioners for RBCs. Poorly performing adhesives can be identified which indicated the technique may be useful as a screening tool for assessing existing and new bonding technologies which offers the potential to limit complications routinely encountered with Class II RBC restorations. © 2014 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

∗ Corresponding author at: Materials Science Unit, Dublin Dental University Hospital, School of Dental Science, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. Tel.: +353 1 612 7371; fax: +353 1 612 7297. E-mail address: garry.fl[email protected] (G.J.P. Fleming) .

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.07.005 0109-5641/© 2014 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1154–1160

1.

Introduction

Today, in vitro bond strength measurements are performed in the laboratory 24 h post-light irradiation [1] using static techniques [2–5] or more laborious fatigue test methods [6–11]. However, none of these in vitro methods provides a reliable prediction of clinical bond adhesive performance in vivo. As with any in vitro experimental testing methodology there are significant disadvantages with those techniques that lack relevance to the clinical situation. Stress generation in resinbased composites (RBCs) that may compromise the adhesive margin of the restoration is not an intrinsic material property of the RBC but a multi-factorial phenomenon that relies upon the associated shrinkage [12,13] and the elastic modulus of the material [14]. Further considerations include the onset of gelation of the resin matrix [15], polymerization rate [16] and the ratio of bonded to non-bonded surface area (or ‘configuration- (C-) factor’) [17]. In many shrinkage stress experiments, it is the compliance of the test system and supporting constructs [18] that will significantly influence the results obtained [19]. The measurement of cuspal deflection using extracted teeth eliminates the problem of the compliance of the testing system and supporting constructs [18] and will better represent the ‘real’ stress distribution with relevant specimen geometry and boundary conditions. Although large cavities are required to produce a measurable deflection, the testing system represents equivalent compliance to that encountered in vivo and should reduce the conflicting stress data that currently exists in the literature [19,20]. Cuspal deflection using extracted teeth has been extensively investigated in the dental literature [21–28]. Cuspal deflection in conjunction with the cervical microleakage assessment approach has been used in extracted teeth with large Class II cavities to determine the efficacy of different LCUs [29–32], RBC placement protocols [33,34] and for assessing different RBC types [30,35]. Class II RBC restorations fail frequently due to marginal leakage [36] as the synergism at the tooth/RBC interface is compromised, allowing for the ingress of bacteria [1,15], ultimately leading to secondary caries [36–38]. Van Meerbeek et al. [1] stated that ‘there is a definite need to test bond effectiveness of adhesives under more clinically relevant circumstances or upon aging of the specimen.’ In line with this thinking [1], the cervical microleakage assessment employed used basic fuchsin dye as the tracer [39] and included an aging component, namely thermocycling for 500 cycles (as recommended by ISO TS 11405 [40,41]). Adhesive bonding classification systems include ‘etch and rinse’ adhesives where the three-steps involved include a separate etch with acid and rinse (conditioning) step, a priming step followed by the application of the adhesive resin [1] or alternatively simplified two-step ‘etch and rinse’ adhesives which combine the primer and adhesive resin [42]. ‘Self-etch’ adhesives which eliminate the rinsing phase are user-friendly although their effectiveness has been questioned [42,43]. In 2005, reviews suggested that simplification of the application procedure with ‘self-etch’ adhesives reduced bond effectiveness [42,43], although more recent studies show these systems to be improved, albeit product dependently [44].

1155

The aims were to assess the cuspal deflection of standardized large mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavities, incrementally filled with a conventional dimethacrylate RBC used in conjunction with one 3-step, one 2-step and three 1-step bonding systems and compared with the unbound condition using a twin channel deflection measuring gauge. The cervical microleakage of the restored teeth was assessed, following thermocycling, to determine bond integrity. The hypothesis proposed was that the choice of dentin bonding system would significantly impact the cuspal deflection measurements recorded and the associated cervical microleakage scores when restored with a single RBC, light irradiated in eight oblique individual increments using a QTH LCU.

2.

Materials and methods

The maximum bucco-palatal-width (BPW) of maxillary premolar teeth, extracted for orthodontic reasons, were measured with a digital micrometer gauge (Mitutoyo, Kawasaki, Japan) with a tolerance of 10 ␮m. The teeth were selected only when their mean BPW was within 9.2–9.6 mm, such that the variance of the mean (9.4 mm) was less than 5% [29–35]. Following selection, 48 maxillary premolars free from caries, hypoplastic defects or cracks on visual examination were subjected to calculus deposit removal using a hand-scaler and distributed into six groups (n = 8). The maxillary premolars were fixed into a cubic stainless steel mold using a chemically activated orthodontic resin (Meadway Rapid Repair, MR Dental Supplies Ltd., Surrey, UK) such that the orthodontic resin extended to within 2 mm below the amelocemental junction (ACJ) [29–35]. The teeth were fixed with the crown uppermost and the long axis vertical. They were then stored in 0.5% chloramine solution at 23 ± 1 ◦ C until required for the extensive cavity preparation. Large standardized MOD cavities were prepared under copious water irrigation in accordance with the established protocol [29–35]. The width of the approximal box was twothirds the BPW of the maxillary premolar, the occlusal isthmus was prepared to half the BPW and the cavity at the occlusal isthmus was standardized to a depth of 3.5 mm from the tip of the palatal cusp. The approximal boxes were extended to 1 mm above the ACJ. The cavosurface margins were all prepared at 90◦ and all internal line angles were rounded. Following MOD cavity preparation, the maxillary premolar teeth were stored in high purity double distilled water at 23 ± 1 ◦ C unless moisture isolation was required for aspects of the experimentation. Following cavity preparation the teeth in Group A were prepared for bonding with the 3-step adhesive (All-Bond 2® Dual-Cured Universal Adhesive System, Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, IL, USA) [45]. Firstly, the MOD cavity preparation was air-dried for 30 s, prior to the application of a 32% phosphoric acid etching gel (Uni-Etch® ). The acid was applied for 15 s without agitation and rinsed with water. Following a light drying with an air-syringe for 1 s, five consecutive coats of the primer (a mixture of All-Bond 2® Universal Dental Adhesive System Primer A (Ref B-2511, Lot 1000007217) and Primer B (Ref B-2512, Lot 1000007218)) was applied with a saturated brush tip until the surface appeared glossy. The primer

1156

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1154–1160

mixture was lightly dried with an air-syringe for 5 s. A thin layer of bonding resin (D/E Resin, Ref B-2502A, Lot 1000007219) was applied to the primed enamel and dentin and light irradiated for 20 s with a QTH LCU (Optilux 501, Kerr Mfg. Co., Orange, CA, USA) operating in standard mode at a light intensity of 660 ± 32 mW cm−2 . The teeth in Group B were prepared for bonding with the 2-step adhesive (All-Bond 2® Dual-Cured Universal Adhesive System) [45]. The MOD cavity preparation was etched (UniEtch® ) and rinsed with water as outlined above. Following a light drying with compressed air for 1 s, a thin layer of bonding resin (D/E Resin) was applied to the etched enamel and dentin and light irradiated for 20 s with the Optilux 501QTH LCU. The teeth in Groups C–E were prepared for bonding with each of the following three 1-step adhesives: Futurabond® DC SingleDose (Ref 1165, Lot 1131462; Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany) [46], AdperTM PromptTM L-PopTM (Ref 41925, Lot 453921; 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) [47] and All-Bond SE® (Ref U-30211, Lot 1100011597; Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, IL, USA) [48]. MOD cavity preparations were cleaned with water prior to drying: light drying with an air-syringe for 30 s (Futurabond® DC SingleDose), drying using three brief blows of an air-syringe (AdperTM PromptTM L-PopTM ) or drying thoroughly (All-Bond SE® ). The Futurabond® DC SingleDose blister pack was activated and the homogeneous adhesive mixture was applied to the enamel and dentin surfaces using a saturated brush tip for 20 s. Futurabond® DC SingleDose was air dried for 5 s and light irradiated for 10 s using the Optilux 501 QTH LCU. The AdperTM PromptTM L-PopTM blister pack was activated, the adhesive brushed actively onto the enamel and dentin surfaces and ‘massaged’ for 15 s. AdperTM PromptTM L-PopTM was thoroughly dried before a second coat of adhesive was applied and dried under an air stream. The adhesive was light irradiated for 10 s with the Optilux 501 QTH LCU. The cartridge tips of the All-Bond SE® ACE dispenser (Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, IL, USA) were placed directly over a mixing well and the two liquids were mixed thoroughly until a uniform pink color was formed. Two coats of the mixed adhesive were applied to the enamel and dentin surfaces with a saturated brush tip and agitated for 10 s until the surface appeared shiny. The adhesive was gently air dried for 5 s and light irradiated for 10 s with the Optilux 501QTH LCU. The teeth in Group F were rinsed, air-dried for 30 s and were then ready for RBC restoration in the unbound condition. The restoration of cavities without the application of a bonding agent served as a negative control for the experimental study. All teeth (Groups A–F) were restored using an oblique incremental technique with GrandioSO (Shade A3, Lot 1103238) RBC (Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany) [49]. The restoration of the teeth involved the placement of three triangular-shaped increments (∼2 mm thickness) in the mesial approximal box, three triangular-shaped increments in the distal approximal box and two occlusal increments.

2.1.

Cuspal deflection

A Tofflemire matrix band was shaped and placed around the maxillary teeth prior to RBC placement and care was taken to ensure that the buccal and lingual cusps of the teeth were free to contact the receptors of the twin channel deflection

Fig. 1 – The buccal and lingual cusps of the extracted teeth were approximated to the receptors of a twin channel deflection-measuring gauge placed approximately 2.5 mm from the palatal cusp tip.

measuring gauge (Twin Channel Analogue Gauge Unit, Thomas Mercer Ltd., St. Alban’s, UK). To ensure consistency in the measuring technique, the palatal measuring gauge was placed in contact and 2.5 mm from the palatal cusp tip [29–35] prior to recording the baseline cuspal deflection measurement (Fig. 1). For all groups, each GrandioSO increment was light irradiated for 20 s in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions with the LCU tip maintained consistently at a distance of 2 mm above the cusp tips. The cuspal deflection measurements were recorded at 0 s (following the 20 s irradiation), 30, 60 and 180 s post-irradiation by adjusting the measuring gauges to be in contact with the tooth. Beyond 180 s, it was assumed that no cuspal recoil of the buccal and palatal cusp occurred. In total, eight cuspal deflection measurements were recorded (one for each increment) for both the buccal and palatal cusps of each premolar tooth in Groups A–F. The combined total cuspal deflection measurement (the sum of the buccal and palatal cusp deflections) was calculated for each tooth. To determine differences in the mean total cuspal deflection measurements between groups, oneway analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey’s tests were conducted (p < 0.05) using SPSS 12.0.1 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

2.2.

Cervical microleakage assessment

The restored teeth were polished in accordance with the clinical protocol, namely using a 15 ␮m grit Composhape finishing diamond bur (Intensiv, Viganello-Lugano, Switzerland) and Sof-Lex Finishing discs (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) mounted on a slow hand-piece under water cooling. Following polishing, the root apices of the teeth were sealed with sticky wax and all tooth surfaces were sealed with nail varnish (Rimmel 60 Seconds, London, UK) [29–35] with the exception of a 1 mm band around the margins of each restoration. The teeth were thermocycled for 500 cycles [40,41] between two water-baths maintained at 4 ± 1 and 65 ± 1 ◦ C [50]. The teeth were submerged for 10 s in each water-bath with a 25 s transfer between baths. The thermocycled teeth were immediately immersed in

1157

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1154–1160

Table 1 – Mean total cuspal deflection measurements for the RBC/Adhesive combinations employed in the current study. Statistical significance across the mean cuspal deflection data highlighted by different upper case letters imply significant differences at p < 0.05. Group A B C D E F

RBC GrandioSO GrandioSO GrandioSO GrandioSO GrandioSO GrandioSO

Adhesive

Mode

3-Step (All-Bond 2 Dual-Cured Universal Adhesive) 2-Step (All-Bond 2® Dual-Cured Universal Adhesive) 1-Step (Futurabond® DC SingleDose) 1-Step (AdperTM PromptTM L-PopTM ) 1-Step (All-Bond SE® ) No adhesive

Total-etch Total-etch Self-etch Self-etch Self-etch Non-etched

®

0.2% basic fuchsin dye for 24 h. The maxillary premolar teeth were then sectioned mid-sagitally in the mesio-distal plane using a ceramic cutting disk (Struers, Glasgow, Scotland) operating at 125 rpm under an applied load of 100 g. The sectioned teeth were examined under a stereo-microscope (Wild M3C, Heerburg, Switzerland) at 25× magnification. The extent of the cervical microleakage was recorded in accordance with a previously used protocol [29–35]. A score of ‘0’ was no evidence of dye penetration; a score of ‘1’ was superficial dye penetration not beyond the ADJ; a score of ‘2’ was dye penetration along the gingival floor and up to the axial wall; a score of ‘3’ was dye penetration along the axial wall and across the pulpal floor and a score of ‘4’ was dye penetration into the pulp chamber from the pulpal floor. To statistically analyse the cervical microleakage scores, a non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test followed by paired group comparisons using Mann–Whitney U tests was conducted (p < 0.05) using the SPSS software.

3.

Mean cuspal deflection (␮m) 11.3 11.0 10.0 6.4 9.0 6.5

± ± ± ± ± ±

2.6 A 2.2 A 2.0 A 1.4 B 1.4 A,B 1.9 B

Groups A–C. However, no difference in total cuspal deflection was evident between the teeth in the negative control (Group F: unbound condition) when compared with Group D (AdperTM PromptTM L-PopTM : p = 1.000) and Group E (All-Bond SE® : p = 0.123).

3.1.

Cervical microleakage assessment

The cervical microleakage scores recorded for the RBC placed using the oblique incremental restoration technique in conjunction with the one 3-step (Group A), one 2-step (Group B), the three 1-step bonding systems (Groups C–E) and the unbound condition employing no bonding system (Group F)

Results

The mean total cuspal (buccal and palatal) deflection measurements (with standard deviations in parentheses) for the commercial GrandioSO RBC placed using the oblique incremental restoration technique in conjunction with the 3-step (Group A: All-Bond 2® ) and 2-step (Group B: All-Bond 2® ) bonding systems employed were 11.3 (2.6) ␮m and 11.0 (2.2) ␮m, respectively (Fig. 2 and Table 1). Oblique incremental restoration of the MOD cavities using the RBC in conjunction with the three 1-step bonding systems resulted in mean total cuspal deflection measurements of 10.0 (2.0) ␮m (Group C: Futurabond® DC SingleDose), 6.4 (1.4) ␮m (Group D: AdperTM PromptTM L-PopTM ) and 9.0 (1.4) ␮m (Group E: All-Bond SE® ). When the unbound condition with no bonding system was employed as the negative control, mean total cuspal deflection measurements of 6.5 (1.9) ␮m (Group F) were recorded (Fig. 1). The homogeneity of the variances of the total cuspal deflection measurements were tested using Levene statistics (p = 0.122). The one-way ANOVA of the total cuspal deflection measurements identified statistical differences (p < 0.001) between the groups tested (Groups A–F). No significant differences in the total cuspal deflection data was evident between the restored maxillary premolar teeth in Groups A–C when post hoc Tukey’s tests were conducted (p > 0.799) or when the total cuspal deflection data of Groups A–C were compared with Group E (p > 0.196). A significant reduction in total cuspal deflection was evident (p < 0.008) for the negative control (Group F: unbound condition) when compared with

Fig. 2 – A box and whisker plot of the total cuspal deflection data for the MOD cavities (n = 8 for each group tested) incrementally restored with GrandioSO RBC. The plot illustrates a summary of the total cuspal deflection values based on the median, quartiles, and extreme values. The box represents the inter-quartile range which contains 50% of the total cuspal deflection values, the whiskers represent the highest and lowest total cuspal deflection values and the bold black line across the box indicates the median total cuspal deflection value. (The value 34 is indicative of an individual specimen outlier within the box and whisker plot of the total cuspal deflection data).

1158

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1154–1160

Fig. 3 – A box and whisker plot of the cervical microleakage scores of the MOD cavities (n = 8 for each group tested) incrementally restored with GrandioSO RBC in conjunction with one 3-step, one 2-step, three 1-step bonding systems and one unbound condition (no bonding system). The plot illustrates a summary of the cervical microleakage scores based on the median, quartiles, and extreme values. The box represents the inter-quartile range which contains 50% of the cervical microleakage scores, the whiskers represent the highest and lowest cervical microleakage scores and the bold black line across the box indicates the median cervical microleakage score (values 75, 88 and 96 indicate individual specimen outliers within the box and whisker plot of the cervical microleakage scores).

are presented using a box and whisker plot (Fig. 3). The Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric test of the cervical microleakage scores revealed a significant difference between Groups A–F (p < 0.001). The Mann–Whitney U tests revealed no significant difference between Groups A–C (p = 1.000). Significantly increased cervical microleakage scores were evident in Group D (AdperTM PromptTM L-PopTM : p < 0.001), Group E (All-Bond SE® : p < 0.022) and Group F (unbound condition: p < 0.001) when compared with the restored teeth in Groups A–C. A significant increase in cervical microleakage score was evident for the restored maxillary premolar teeth in Group D compared with Group E (p = 0.022). There was also a significant increase in cervical microleakage scores (p < 0.001) for the negative control (unbound condition) when cervical microleakage scores were compared with Groups A–E.

4.

Discussion

Class II RBC restorations primarily fail by marginal leakage [16] when the synergism of the tooth/RBC interface, mediated by the adhesive bond, is compromised leading to the ingress of

bacteria [1,15]. As a result, Class II cavities were chosen for the current investigation. Previous research has shown that following preparation of an MOD cavity, tooth cusps are susceptible to deflection during RBC restoration and the amount of deflection is dependent upon the cavity size and shape [51], compliance of the remaining tooth structure [18], RBC placement technique [33,34], RBC material [30,35], LCU [29–32], measurement technique [21–29] and adhesive bonding system [35]. In the current study, all variables with the exception of the adhesive bonding systems were maintained constant. The teeth used in the current investigation were standardized (to within 0.196) with a mean total cuspal deflection measurement of 9.0 (1.4) ␮m. The reduced cuspal deflection measurements of Groups D–F were indicative of the values previously reported by the authors when the bonding system failed as a result of either inadequate polymerization of the RBC [29] or poor adhesive performance [35]. The cervical microleakage scores recorded were semiquantitative owing to the employment of a non-parametric scale [43,52]. The Mann–Whitney U tests revealed significantly increased cervical microleakage scores in Group D (AdperTM PromptTM L-PopTM : p < 0.001), Group E (All-Bond SE® : p < 0.022) and Group F (unbound condition: p < 0.001) teeth when compared with cervical microleakage scores for Groups A–C, where no significant difference between groups (p = 1.000) were evident. In line with the previously reported experimental oxirane and silorane RBC study [35], the increased cervical microleakage scores were indicative of complications with the adhesive bond. In addition, a significant increase in cervical microleakage scores was evident (p < 0.001) for the unbound condition when cervical microleakage scores for Group F were compared with Groups A–E. Furthermore, a significant increase in cervical microleakage score was evident for the Group D compared with Group E (p = 0.022). Therefore, the authors postulate that the significant reduction in mean total cuspal deflection measurement and the concomitant significant increase in cervical microleakage score for the one-step AdperTM PromptTM L-PopTM adhesive (Group D) and the negative control where the unbound condition was employed (Group F) is a manifestation of a comprised bond at

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1154–1160

the tooth/RBC interface during/following light curing, when compared with the adhesive bonding systems used in Groups A–C. While not significant, the result is similar for the 1-step All-Bond SE® adhesive compared with the adhesive bonding in Groups A–C. Differences in mean total cuspal deflection measurements and cervical microleakage scores between the teeth restored incrementally using the 1-step adhesives is suggested to be a possible result of the pH of the self-etch solutions [44]. The pH of the underperforming AdperTM PromptTM L-PopTM self-etch solution is reported as 0.9 [47], a ‘strong self-etch’ where the interaction depth at the dentin is ‘several micrometers deep’ [44] compared with the ‘mild self-etch’ Futurabond® DC SingleDose (pH 2.0) and All-Bond SE® (pH 2.2), where dentin interaction depth lies within 1–2 ␮m. In general, the ‘strong self-etch’ adhesives ‘underperform at dentin’ [44] when concerned with bond durability and the clinical longevity of the restorations [53,54], which corroborate the results achieved in this study. Additionally, Van Meerbeek et al. [44] suggested a trend toward ‘mild self-etch’ adhesives and what the author referred to as the ‘Adhesion-Decalcification concept’ (A–D concept) [55,56]. While both Futurabond® DC SingleDose (pH 2.0) and All-Bond SE® (pH 2.2) self-etch solutions can be regarded as ‘mild self-etch’ adhesives [44], it is possible that the increased performance of the Futurabond® DC SingleDose could be due to the compatibility of the adhesive system with the RBC (GrandioSO), both manufactured by Voco GmbH (Cuxhaven, Germany). However, a note of caution has been raised with regard to the over-interpretation of the clinical significance of microleakage/quantitative marginal analysis studies whereby there is little evidence to correlate well such in vitro findings with clinical outcomes [57]. It is important to recognize that ‘microleakage’ in this context is a measurement of dye ingress along unbonded or debonded interfaces (i.e. lack of bonding integrity) and dye permeation through the adhesive itself. This should not be confused as a direct predictive model for microbial ingress, or indeed as a predictor of clinical performance [57]. While no correlation with microleakage and bond strength or stress exists in the literature, the authors propose that the microleakage test used in conjunction with the cuspal deflection measurement has its place in the dental literature. Therefore we feel that both methods combined are necessary to provide the information required for a greater understanding of the clinical scenario in vivo.

references

[1] Van Meerbeek B, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Mine A, Van Ende A, Never A, et al. Relationship between bond-strength tests and clinical outcomes. Dent Mater 2010;26:e100–21. [2] Degrange M, Lapostolle B. L’expérience des batailles des adhésifs. L’Information Dentaire 2007;89:112–8. [3] Shimada Y, Senawongse P, Harnirattsai C, Burrow MF, Tagami J. Bond strength of two adhesive systems to primary and permanent enamel. Oper Dent 2002;27:403–9. [4] Drummond JL, Sakaguchi RL, Racean DC, Wozny J, Steinberg AD. Testing mode and surface treatment effects on dentin bonding. J Biomed Mater Res 1996;32:533–41. [5] Sano H, Shono T, Sonoda H, Takatsu T, Ciucchi B. Relationship between surface area for adhesion and tensile

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9] [10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

1159

bond strength – evaluation of micro-tensile bond test. Dent Mater 1994;10:236–40. Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Petschelt A. Fatigue behavior of different dentin adhesives. Clin Oral Investig 1999;3: 11–7. Erickson RL, De Gee AJ, Feilzer AJ. Fatigue testing of enamel bonds with self-etch and total-etch adhesive systems. Dent Mater 2006;22:981–7. De Munck J, Braem M, Wevers M, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Suzuki K, et al. Micro-rotary fatigue of tooth–biomaterial interfaces. Biomaterials 2005;26:1145–53. Braem M. Microshear fatigue testing of tooth/adhesive interfaces. J Adhes Dent 2007;9:249–53. Staninec M, Kim P, Marshall GW, Ritchie RO, Marshall SJ. Fatigue of dentin–composite interfaces with four-point bend. Dent Mater 2008;24:799–803. Poitevin A, De Munck J, Cardoso MV, Mine A, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B. Comparison of dynamic versus static bond strength testing. Dent Mater 2010;26:e144 [Abstract No. 40]. Watts DC, Marouf AS, Al-Hindi AM. Photopolymerization shrinkage-stress kinetics in resin composites: methods development. Dent Mater 2003;19:1–11. Goncalves F, Pfeifer CS, Ferracance JL, Braga RR. Contraction stress determinants in dimethacrylate composites. J Dent Res 2008;87:367–71. Kleverlann CJ, Feilzer AJ. Polymerization shrinkage and contraction stress of dental resin composites. Dent Mater 2005;21:1150–7. Davidson CL, Feilzer AJ. Polymerization shrinkage and polymerization shrinkage stress in polymer-based restoratives. J Dent 1997;25:435–40. Davidson CL, DeGee AJ, Feilzer AJ. The competition between the composite-dentin bond strength and the polymerisation contraction stress. J Dent Res 1984;63: 1396–9. Braga RR, Boaro LC, Kuroe T, Azevedo CL, Singer JM. Influence of cavity dimensions and their derivatives (volume and ‘C’ factor) on shrinkage stress development and microleakage of composite restorations. Dent Mater 2006;22:818–23. Boaro LC, Gonc¸alves F, Braga RR. Influence of the bonding substrate in dental composite polymerization stress testing. Acta Biomater 2010;6:547–51. Boaro LC, Gonc¸alves F, Guimarães TC, Ferracance JL, Versluis A, Braga RR. Polymerization stress, shrinkage and elastic modulus of current low-shrinkage restorative composites. Dent Mater 2010;26:1144–50. Meira JBC, Braga RR, Ballester RY, Tanaka CB, Versluis A. Understanding contradictory data in contraction stress tests. J Dent Res 2011;90:365–70. Segura A, Donly KJ. In vitro posterior composite polymerization recovery following hygroscopic expansion. J Oral Rehabil 1993;20:495–9. Sulimann AA, Boyer DB, Lakes RS. Cusp movement in premolars resulting from composite polymerization shrinkage. Dent Mater 1993;9:6–10. Taha NA, Palamara JEA, Messer HH. Cuspal deflection, strain and microleakage of endodontically treated premolar teeth restored with direct resin composite. J Dent 2009;37: 724–30. Meredith N, Setchell DJ. In-vitro measurement of cuspal strain and displacement in composite restored teeth. J Dent 1997;25:331–7. Sulimann AA, Boyer DB, Lakes RS. Interferomic measurements of cusp deformation of teeth restored with composites. J Dent Res 1993;72:1532–6. Versluis A, Douglas WH, Cross M, Sakaguchi RL. Does an incremental filling technique reduce polymerization shrinkage stresses. J Dent Res 1996;75:871–8.

1160

d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 3 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1154–1160

[27] Tantbirojna D, Versluis A, Pintado MR, DeLong R, Douglas WH. Tooth deformation patterns in molars after composite restoration. Dent Mater 2004;20:535–42. [28] Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Pintado MR, DeLong R, Douglas WH. Residual shrinkage stress distributions in molars after composite restoration. Dent Mater 2004;20:554–64. [29] Abbas G, Fleming GJP, Harrington E, Shortall ACC, Burke FJT. Cuspal movement in premolar teeth restored with a packable composite cured in bulk or incrementally. J Dent 2003;31:437–44. [30] Fleming GJP, Hall D, Shortall ACC, Burke FJT. Cuspal movement and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with posterior filling materials of varying reported volumetric shrinkage values. J Dent 2005;33:139–46. [31] Fleming GJP, Khan S, Afzal O, Palin WM, Burke FJT. Investigation of polymerisation shrinkage strain, associated cuspal movement and microleakage of MOD cavities restored incrementally with resin-based composite using an LED light curing unit. J Dent 2007;35:97–103. [32] Fleming GJP, Cara RR, Palin WM, Burke FJT. Cuspal movement and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with resin-based filling materials cured using a ‘soft-start’ polymerisation protocol. Dent Mater 2007;23:637–43. [33] Cara RR, Fleming GJP, Palin WM, Walmsley AD, Burke FJT. Cuspal deflection and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with resin-based composites with and without an intermediary flowable layer. J Dent 2007;35:482–9. [34] Moorthy A, Hogg CH, Dowling AH, Grufferty BF, Benetti AR, Fleming GJP. Cuspal deflection and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with bulk-fill flowable resin-based composite base materials. J Dent 2012;40:500–5. [35] Palin WM, Fleming GJP, Nathwani H, Burke FJT, Randall RC. In vitro cuspal deflection and microleakage of maxillary premolars restored with novel low-shrink dental composites. Dent Mater 2005;21:324–35. [36] Opdam NJM, Loomans BAC, Roeters FJM, Bronkhorst EM. Five-year clinical performance of posterior resin composites placed by dental students. J Dent 2004;32:379–83. [37] Lutz F, Kreici I, Barbakow F. Quality and durability of marginal adaptation in bonded composite restorations. Dent Mater 1991;7:107–13. [38] Uno S, Asmussen E. Marginal adaptation of a restorative resin polymerized at reduced rate. Scand J Dent Res 1991;99:440–4. [39] Hilton TJ. Can modern day procedures and materials reliably seal cavities? In vitro investigations: Part 2. Am J Dent 2002;15:279–89. [40] ISO. Dental materials – testing of adhesion to tooth structure. Technical specification no. 11405; 2003. [41] ISO. Dental materials – guidance on testing of adhesion to tooth structure. Technical specification no. 11405; 2004.

[42] Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater 2005;21:864–81. [43] De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 2005;84:118–32. [44] Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Mine A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL. State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater 2011;27:17–28. [45] Product specification for All-Bond 2® Dual-Cured Universal Adhesive System, Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, IL, USA. [46] Product specification for Futurabond® DC SingleDose, Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany. [47] Product specification for AdperTM PromptTM L-PopTM , 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA. [48] Product specification for All-Bond SE® , Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, IL, USA. [49] Product specification for GrandioSO, Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany. [50] Gale MS, Darvell BW. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent 1999;27:89–99. [51] Morin DL, Cross M, Volley VR, Douglas WH, DeLong R. Biophysical stress analysis of restored teeth: modelling and analysis. Dent Mater 1988;4:77–84. [52] Castelnuovo J, Tjan AHL, Liu P. Micro-leakage of multi-step and simplified-step bonding systems. Am J Dent 1996;9:245–8. [53] Bracknett WW, Covey DA, St. Germain Jr HA. One-year clinical performance of a self-etching adhesive in class V resin composites cured by two methods. Oper Dent 2002;27:218–22. [54] Shirai K, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Lambrechts P, Suzuki K, et al. Effect of cavity configuration and ageing on the bonding effectiveness of six adhesives to dentin. Dent Mater 2005;21:110–24. [55] Yoshida Y, Van Meerbeek B, Nakayama Y, Yoshioka M, Snauwaert J, Abe Y, et al. Adhesion to and decalcification of hydroxyapatite by carboxylic acids. J Dent Res 2001;80:1565–9. [56] Yoshioka M, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Nomura Y, et al. Adhesion/decalcification mechanisms of acid interactions with human hard tissues. J Biomed Mater Res 2002;59:56–62. [57] Heintze SD. Systematic reviews: I. The correlation between laboratory tests on marginal quality and bond strength: II. The outcome between marginal quality and clinical outcome. J Adhes Dent 2007;9:77–106.

The adhesive potential of dentin bonding systems assessed using cuspal deflection measurements and cervical microleakage scores.

To assess the cuspal deflection and cervical microleakage of standardized mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavities restored with a dimethacrylate resin-bas...
1MB Sizes 2 Downloads 4 Views