The effect of C-factor and volume on microleakage of composite resin restorations with enamel margins

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2006;31(6):452-459

Publication date (electronic) : 2006 November 30

doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2006.31.6.452

Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, Korea.

Corresponding Author: Dong-Hoon Shin. Department of Conservative Dentistry College of Dentistry, Dankook University 7-1 Shinbu-dong, Cheonan, Korea. Tel: 82-41-550-1965, Fax: 82-41-550-1963, donyshin@dankook.ac.kr

Received 2006 September 04; Revised 2006 October 30; Accepted 2006 November 04.

Abstract

Competition will usually develop between the opposing walls as the restorative resin shrinks during polymerization. Magnitude of this phenomenon may be depended upon cavity configuration and volume.

The purpose of this sturdy was to evaluate the effect of cavity configuration and volume on microleakage of composite resin restoration that has margins on the enamel site only.

The labial enamel of forty bovine teeth was ground using a model trimmer to expose a flat enamel surface. Four groups with cylindrical cavities were defined, according to volume and configuration factor (Depth × Diameter / C-factor) - Group I: 1.5 mm × 2.0 mm / 4.0, Group II: 1.5 mm × 6.0 mm / 2.0, Group III: 2.0 mm × 1.72 mm / 5.62, Group IV: 2.0 mm × 5.23 mm / 2.54.

After treating with fifth-generation one-bottle adhesive - BC Plus™ (Vericom, AnYang, Korea), cavities were bulk filled with microhybrid composite resin - Denfill™ (Vericom). Teeth were stored in distilled water for one day at room temperature and were finished and polished with Sof-Lex system. Specimens were thermocycled 500 times between 5℃ and 55℃ for 30 second at each temperature.

Teeth were isolated with two layers of nail varnish except the restoration surface and 1 mm surrounding margins. Electrical conductivity (µA) was recorded in distilled water by electrochemical method. Microleakage scores were compared and analyzed using two-way ANOVA at 95% level.

The results were as follows:

1. Small cavity volume showed lower microleakage score than large one, however, there was no statistically significant difference.

2. There was no relationship between cavity configuration and microleakage.

Factors of cavity configuration and volume did not affect on microleakage of resin restorations with enamel margins only.

Keywords: Polymerization shrinkage; Configuration factor; Volume Electrical conductivity; Microleakage

References

1. Dentin bonding systems: an update. Council on Dental Materials, Instruments, and Equipment. J Am Dent Assoc 1987. 114(1)91–95.

2. Nakabayashi N, Kosima K, Masuhara E. Promotion of adhesion by infiltration of monomer into tooth substrates. J Biomed Mater Res 1982. 16265–273.

3. Bowen RL. Properties of a silica-reinforced polymer for dental restoration. J Am Dent Assoc 1963. 6657–64.

4. Labella R, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G. Polymerization shrinkage and elasticity of flowable composite and filling adhesive. Dent Mater 1999. 15128–137.

5. Brännström M. Communication between the oral cavity and the dental pulp associated with restorative treatment. Oper Dent 1984. 957–68.

6. Jörgensen KD, Asmussen E, Shimokobe H. Enamel damage by contracting restorative resin. Scand J Dent Res 1975. 83120–122.

7. Sheth JJ, Fuller JL, Jensen ME. Cuspal deformation and fracture resistance of teeth with dentin adhesives and composites. J Prosthet Dent 1988. 60(5)560–569.

8. Choi KK, Ryu GJ, Choi SM, Lee MJ, Park SJ, Ferracane JL. Effects of cavity configuration on composite restoration. Oper Dent 2004. 29(4)462–469.

9. Davidson CL, de Gee AJ. Relaxation of polymerization contraction stressed by flow in dental composite. J Dent Res 1984. 63146–148.

10. Feilzer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Quantitative determination of stress reduction by flow in composite restoration. Dent Mater 1990. 6167–171.

11. de la Macorra JC, Gomez-Fernandez S. Quantification of the configuration factor in Class I and II cavities and simulated cervical erosions. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 1996. 4(1)29–33.

12. Miguel A, de la Maccora JC. A predictive formula of the contraction stress in restorative and luting materials attending to free and adhesive surface, volume and deformation. Dent Mater 2001. 17241–246.

13. Ferracane JL, Mitchem JC. Relationship between composite contraction stress and leakage in class V cavities. Am J Dent 2003. 16239–243.

14. Pashley DH, Ciucchi B, Sano H, Horner JA. Permeability of dentin to adhesive agents. Quintessence Int 1993. 24(9)618–631.

15. Van Meerbeek B, Inokoshi S, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Morphological aspects of the resin-dentin interdiffusion zone with different dentin adhesive systems. J Dent Res 1992. 71(8)1530–1540.

16. Van Meerbeek B, Peumans M, Verschueren M, Gladys S, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Clinical status of ten dentin adhesive systems. J Dent Res 1994. 73(11)1690–1702.

17. Gladys S, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Microleakage of adhesive restorative materials. Am J Dent 2001. 14(3)170–176.

18. Hannig M, Friedrichs C. Comparative in vivo and in vitro investigation of interfacial bond variability. Oper Dent 2001. 26(1)3–11.

19. Eick JD, Welch FH. Dentin adhesives-do they protect the dentin from acid etching? Quintessence Int 1986. 17(9)533–544.

20. Johnston WM, Leung RL, Fan PL. A mathematical model for post-irradiation hardening of photoactivated composite resins. Dent Mater 1985. 1(5)191–194.

21. Iwami Y, Yamamoto H, Ebisu S. A new electrical method for detecting marginal leakage of in vitro resin restorations. J Dent 2000. 28(4)241–247.

22. Mattison GD, von Fraunhofer JA. Electrochemical microleakage study of endodontic sealer/cements. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1983. 55(4)402–407.

23. Nakano Y. A new electrical testing method on marginal leakage of composite resin restorations. Japan J conserv Dent 1985. 8(4)1183–1198.

24. Delivanis PD, Chapman KA. Comparison and reliability of techniques for measuring leakage and marginal penetration. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1982. 53(4)410–416.

25. Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955. 34(6)849–853.

26. Gwinnett AJ, Matsui A. The physical relationship between enamel and adhesive. Arch Oral Biol 1967. 12(12)1615–1620.

27. Retief DH. Effect of conditioning the enamel surface with phosphoric acid. J Dent Res 1973. 52(2)333–341.

28. Silverstone LM. Fissure sealants. Laboratory studies. Caries Res 1974. 8(1)2–26.

29. Gwinnett AJ. Histologic changes in human enamel following treatment with acidic adhesive conditioning agents. Arch Oral Biol 1971. 16(7)731–738.

30. Eick JD, Robinson SJ, Cobb CM, Chappell RP, Spencer P. The dentinal surface: its influence on dentinal adhesion. Quintessence Int 1992. 23(1)43–51.

31. Eick JD, Gwinnett AJ, Pashley DH, Robinson SJ. Current concepts on adhesion to dentin. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 1997. 8(3)306–335.

32. Swift EJ Jr, Perdigao J, Heymann HO. Bonding to enamel and dentin: a brief history and state of the art. Quintessence Int 1995. 26(2)95–110.

33. Bastos PA, Retief DH, Bradley EL, Denys FR. Effect of etch duration on the shear bond strength of a microfilm composite resin to enamel. Am J Dent 1988. 1(4)151–157.

34. Barkmeier WW, Shaffer SE, Gwinnett AJ. Effects of 15 vs 60 second enamel acid conditioning on adhesion and morphology. Oper Dent 1986. 11(3)111–116.

35. Mitchem JC. The use and abuse of aesthetic materials in posterior teeth. Int Dent J 1988. 38(2)119–125.

36. Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Petschelt A. Long-term effect of dentin primers on enamel bond strength and marginal adaptation. Oper Dent 2000. 25(1)11–19.

37. Franco EB, Gonzaga Lopes L, Lia Mondelli RF, da Silva e Souza MH Jr, Pereira Lauris JR. Effect of the cavity configuration factor on marginal microleakage of esthetic restoration materials. Am J Dent 2003. 16(3)211–214.

38. Mallmann A, Zovico F, Soares M, Placido E, Ferrari M, Cardoso PE. Microtensile dentin bond strength of self-etching and single-bottle adhesive system in different cavity configurations. J Adhes Dent 2003. 5(2)121–127.

39. Armstrong SR, Keller JC, Boyer DB. The influence of water storage and C-factor on dentin-resin composite microtensile bond strength and pathway utilizing a filled and unfilled adhesive. Dent Mater 2001. 17(3)268–276.

40. Barnes DM, Thompson VP, Blank LW, McDonald NJ. Microleakage of Class 5 composite resin restorations: a comparison between in vivo and in vitro. Oper Dent 1993. 18(6)237–245.

41. Abdalla AI, Davidson CL. Comparison of the marginal integrity of in vivo and in vitro Class II composite restorations. J Dent 1993. 21(3)158–162.

42. Ferrari M, Yamamoto K, Vichi A, Finger WJ. Clinical and laboratory evaluation of adhesive restorative systems. Am J Dent 1994. 7(4)217–219.

43. Momoi Y, Iwase H, Nakano Y, Kohno A, Asanuma A, Yanagisawa K. Gradual increases in marginal leakage of resin composite restorations with thermal stress. J Dent Res 1990. 69(10)1659–1663.

44. Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Complete marginal seal of Class V resin composite restorations effected by increased flexibility. J Dent Res 1990. 69(6)1240–1243.

Article information Continued

(open-access) :

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.