Analysis of self-etch adhesives behavior in class I composite restorations with different treatment of enamel margins and light-activation sources/ Análise do comportamento de adesivos autocondicionantes em restaurações de resina composta classe I com diferentes tratamentos das margens de esmalte e fontes de ativação de luz

Maria Malerba Colombi Humel, Lucia Trazzi Prieto, Josué Junior Araujo Pierote, Cintia Tereza Pimenta de Araujo, João Victor Frazão Câmara, Isabel Ferreira Barbosa, Guereth Alexsanderson Oliveira Carvalho, Luis Alexandre Maffei Sartini Paulillo

Abstract


Objective: To evaluate the microtensile bond strength (MTBS), knoop microhardness (KHN) and gap formation of class I restorations restored with self-etching adhesives and resin composites light-activated by either halogen or LED light curing units. Materials and Methods: Class I cavities were prepared in one hundred and forty-four human third molars. Three self-etching adhesives (Clearfil S3 Bond - S3, Clearfil Protect Bond – ProtectB and One-Up Bond F Plus - OneUp) were applied to the cavities, which had the enamel margins either etched with 35% phosphoric acid or left unecthed. The cavities were incrementally restored with TPH3 restorative composite, which was light-activated using Light Emitted by Diode (Hadii-Cal) or Halogen Lamp (Optilux 501). Epoxy resin replicas were obtained from the restored teeth, which were then submitted to thermal cycling. Afterwards, new replicas were obtained and the gaps at the resin composite/enamel margin interface were analyzed by Scanning Electronic Microscopy. Half sample was randomly tested for microtensile bond strength test (n=6) while the other half had the composite tested for KHN (n=6). Results: The etched enamel contributed to avoid gap formation only when OneUp adhesive system was used. No significant difference in MTBS values was found among groups. For KHN analysis, all restorations light-activated with LED showed higher KHN values than those light-activated with halogen lamps. In addition, the resin composites used to restore cavities with acid etched enamel margins showed higher KHN means than those used in cavities having unteched enamel margins. Conclusion: The resin composite bonded to cavities with S3 showed the lowest KHN values at the intermediate and bottom. ProtectB showed no significant differences for the different surface depths.


Keywords


Dentin-Bonding Agents, Composite Resins, Dental Enamel.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Perdigão J, Lopes M. Dentin bonding: questions for the new millennium. J Adhes Dent. 1999. 1:191-209.

Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle g. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003; 28:215-35.

Van Meerbeek B, Van Landuyt K, De Munk J, Hashimoto M, Peumans M et al. Technique-Sensitivity of Contemporary Adhesives. Dent Mater J. 2005; 24(1):1-13.

Bolhuis PB, De Gee AJ, Kleverlaan CJ, EL Zohairy AA, Feilzer AJ. Contraction stress and bond strength to dentin for compatible and incompatible combinations of bonding systems and chemical and light-cured core build-up resin composites. Dent Mater. 2006; 22:223-233.

De Munk J, Van Landuyt K, Coutinho E, Poitevin A, Peumans M, Lambrechts P et al. Microtensile Bond strength of adhesives bonded to class-I cavity-bottom dentin after thermo-cycling. Dent Mater. 2005; 21(11):999-1007.

Perdigão J, Lopes MM & Gomes G. In vitro bonding performance of self-ecth adhesives: II – Ultramorphological evaluation. Oper Dent. 2008 33(5):534-549.

Kubo S, Yokota H, Sata Y, Hayashi Y. Microaleakage of Self-etch Primers After Thermal and Flexural Load Cycling. Am J Dent 2001; 14:163-169.

Watanabe T, Tsubota K, Takamizawa T, Kurokawa H, Rikuta et al. Effect of prior acid etching on bonding durability of single-step adhesives. Oper Dent. 2008; 33(4):426-433.

Pivetta MR, Moura SK, Barroso LP, Lascala AC, Reis A et a. Bond strength and etching pattern of adhesive systems to enamel: effects of conditioning time and enamel preparation. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2008; 20:322-336.

Giachetti L, Russo DS, Bambi C, Grandini R. A review of polymerization shrinkage stress: current technique for posterior direct resin restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2006; 7(4): 79-88.

De Munk J, Van Landutyt K, Coutinho E, Poitevin A, Peumans M et al. Micro-tensile Bond strength of adhesives bonded to class-I cavity-bottom dentin after thermo-cycling. Dent Mater. 2005; 21:999-1007.

Shirai K, De Munk J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Lambrechts P et al. Effect of cavity configuration and aging on the bonding effectiveness of six adhesives to dentin. Dent Mater. 2005; 21:110-124.

Bowen RL, Nemoto K, Rapson JE. Adhesive bonding of varius materials to hard tooth tissues: forces developing in composite materials during hardening. J Am Dent Assoc 1983: 106(4): 475-7.

Ferracane JL, Condon JR, Pham B, Mitchem JC. Relating composite contraction stress to leakage in class V cavities. J Dent Res 1999; 78:482 [Abst. No 3016].

Calheiros FC, Sadek FT, Boara LCC, Braga RR. Polymerization stress related to radiant exposure and its effect on microleakage of composite restorations. J Dent. 2007 (35):946-952.

Okuda M, Pereira PN, Nakajima M, Tagami J, Pashley DH. Long-term durability of resin dentin interface: nanoleakage vs. microtensile bond strength. Operat Dent 2002;27:289–96.

Carrilho MR, Geraldeli S, Tay F, de Goes MF, Carvalho RM et al. In vivo presentation of the hybrid layer by chlorhexidine. J Dent Res. 2007; 86(6):529-33.

Jiménez-Planas A, Martin J, Ábalos C, Llamas R. Developments in polymerization lamps. Quintessence Int. 2008; 39;180.e74-84.

Martin FE, A survey of the Efficiency of Visible Light Curing Units. J Dent 1998; 26(3):239-243.

Bouschlicher M, Berning K & Qian F. Describling adequacy of cure with maximum hardness ratios and non-linear regression. Oper Dent. 2008;33(3):312-320.

Brandt WC, Moraes RR, Correr-Sobrinho L, Sinhoreti MAC, Consani S. Effect of different light-activation methods on push-out force, hardness and cross-link density of resin composite restoration. Dent Mat 2008; 24:846-850.

Gale MS, Darvell MW. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent. 1999;27:89-99.

Tay FR, Pashley DH, Suh BI, Carvalho RM, Itthsgsrun A. Single-step adhesives are permeable membranes. J Dent. 2002; 30:371-382.44

Reis A, Grandi V, Carlotto L, Bortoli G, Patzlaff R et al. Effect of smear layer thickness and acidity of self-etching solutions on early long-term bond strength to dentin. J Dent. 2005; 33:549-559.

El Araby AM, Talic YF. The effect of thermal cycling on the adhesion of self-etching adhesives on dental enamel and dentin. J Cont D Pract. 2007; 8(2):1-10.

Anusavice KJ, Brantley WA. Physical properties of dental materials. In: Anusavice KJ, editor. Phillip’s science of dental materials. 11th edition. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2003. p. 41–71.

Puckett AD, Fitchic JG, Kirk PC, Gamblin J. Direct composite restorative materials. Dent Clin N Am. 2007;51:659-675.

Price RB, Derand T, Andreou P, Murphy D. The effect of two configuration factors, time, and thermal cycling on resin to dentin bond strengths. Biomater. 2003; 24:1013-1021.

Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De Munk J, Peumans M, Yoshida Y, et al. Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials. 2007; 28:3757-3785.

Yoshida Y, Nagakane K, Fukuda R, Nakayama Y, Okazaki M, et al. Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers. J Dent Res. 2004;83:454-458.

Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Kaga M, Endo K, sano H et al. In vivo degradation of resin dentin bonds over 1 to 3 years. J Dent Res. 2000;79:1385-91.

Burrow MF, Inokoshi S, Tagami J. Water sorption of several bonding resins. Am J Dent. 1999;12:295-298.

Santerre JP, Shajii L & Leung BW. Relation of dental composite formulations to their degradation and the release of hydrolyzed polymeric-resin-derived products. C Rev Oral Biol Med. 2001; 12(2):136-151.

Stahl F, Asworth SH, Jandt KD, Mills RW. Light emitting diode (LED) polymerization of dental composites: flexural properties and polymerization potential. Biomaterials. 2000; 21(13) 1379-1385.

Sanares AME, Itthagarum A, King NM, Tay FR, Pashley DH. Adverse surface interactions between one-bottle light-cured adhesives and chemical-cured composites. Dent Mater. 2001;17:542-556.

Damasceno JE, Rodrigues FV, Dias LM, Shibasaki PAN, Lima MJP, Araújo RPC, Foxton RM, Cavalcanti AN. Effect of Dental Erosion and Methods for its Control on the Marginal and Internal Adaptation of Restorations with Different Adhesive Systems.J Health Sci. 2019;21(5esp):437-44.

AlHabdan AA. Review of microleakage evaluation tools. J Int Oral Health. 2017;9(4):141-145.

Sofan E, Sofan A, Palaia G, Tenore G, Romeo U, Migliau G. Classification review of dental adhesive systems: from the IV generation to the universal type. Ann Stomatol (Roma).2017;8(1):1–17.

Aggarwal V, Singla M, Yadav S, Yadav H. Effect of flowable composite liner and glass ionomer liner on class II gingival marginal adaptation of direct composite restorations with different bonding strategies. J Dent. 2014; 42(5):619-625.

Falconí-Borja GM, Molina-Pule CG, Velásquez-Ron BV, Armas-Vega AC. Evaluación del grado de microfiltración en restauraciones de resina compuesta, comparando dos sistemas adhesivos tras diferentes períodos de envejecimiento. Rev Fac Odontol Univ Antioq. 2016;27(2):281-295.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.34117/bjdv6n10-380

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.