Warning: mkdir(): Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 81

Warning: fopen(upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-12.txt): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 83

Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 84
The influence of cavity configuration on the microtensile bond strength between composite resin and dentin


Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.

The influence of cavity configuration on the microtensile bond strength between composite resin and dentin

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2008;33(5):472-480
Publication date (electronic) : 2008 September 30
doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2008.33.5.472
Yemi Kim, Jeong-won Park, Chan young Lee, Yoon jung Song, Deok Kyu Seo, Byoung-Duck Roh
Department of Conservative Dentistry, The Graduate School, Yonsei University, Korea.
Corresponding Author: Byoung-Duck Roh. Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, 134 Shinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120-752, Korea. Tel: 82-2-2228-8701, Fax: 82-2-313-7575, operatys16@yuhs.ac
Received 2008 August 08; Revised 2008 August 25; Accepted 2008 September 01.

Abstract

This study was conducted to evaluate the influence of the C-factor on the bond strength of a 6th generation self-etching system by measuring the microtensile bond strength of four types of restorations classified by different C-factors with an identical depth of dentin.

Eighty human molars were divided into four experimental groups, each of which had a C-factor of 0.25, 2, 3 or 4. Each group was then further divided into four subgroups based on the adhesive and composite resin used. The adhesives used for this study were AQ Bond Plus (Sun Medical, Japan) and Xeno III (DENTSPLY, Germany). And composite resins used were Fantasista (Sun Medical, Japan) and Ceram-X mono (DENTSPLY, Germany).

The results were then analyzed using one-way ANOVA, a Tukey's test, and a Pearson's correlation test and were as follows.

  1. There was no significant difference among C-factor groups with the exception of groups of Xeno III and Ceram-X mono (p < 0.05).

  2. There was no significant difference between any of the adhesives and composite resins in groups with C-factor 0.25, 2 and 4.

  3. There was no correlation between the change in C-factor and microtensile bond strength in the Fantasista groups.

It was concluded that the C-factor of cavities does not have a significant effect on the microtensile bond strength of the restorations when cavities of the same depth of dentin are restored using composite resin in conjunction with the 6th generation self-etching system.

Keywords: C-factor; 6th generation dentin bonding agent; Microtensile bond strength; Contraction stress

References

1. Davidson CL, de Gee AJ. Relaxation of polymerization contraction stresses by flow in dental composites. J Dent Res 1984. 63146–148.
2. Davidson CL. Resisting the curing contraction with adhesive composites. J Prosthet Dent 1986. 55446–447.
3. Feilzer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. J Dent Res 1987. 661636–1639.
4. Feilzer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Setting stresses in composites for two different curing modes. Dent Mater 1993. 92–5.
5. Alster D, Feilzer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Polymerization contraction stress in thin resin composite layers as a function of layer thickness. Dent Mater 1997. 13146–150.
6. Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Douglas WH. Do dental composites always shrink toward the light? J Dent Res 1998. 771435–1445.
7. He Z, Shimada Y, Tagami J. The effect of cavity size and incremental technique on micro-tensile bond strength of resin composite in Class I cavities. Dent Mater 2007. 23533–538.
8. Uno S, Tanka T, Inoue S. The influence of configuration factors on cavity adaptation in compomer restoration. Dent Mater J 1999. 1819–31.
9. Shirai K, Munck JD, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Lambrechts P, Suzuki K, Shintani H, Meerbeek BV. Effect of cavity configuration and agind on the bonding effectiveness of six adhesives to dentin. Dent Mater 2005. 21110–124.
10. Wattanawongpitak N, Yoshikawa T, Burrow MF, Tagami J. The effect of bonding system and composite type on adaptation of different C-factor restorations. Dent Mater J 2006. 2545–50.
11. Sano H, Shono T, Sonoda H, Takatsu T, Ciucchi B, Carvalho R, Pashley DH. Relationship between surface area for adhesion and tensile bond strength - Evaluation of a micro-tensile bond test. Dent Mater 1994. 10236–240.
12. Nakajima M, Kanemura N, Pereira PN, Tagami J, Pashley DH. Comparative microtensile bond strength and SEM analysis of bonding to wet and dry dentin. Am J Dent 2000. 13324–328.
13. Frankenberger R, Perdigao J, Rosa BT, Lopes M. "No-bottle" vs "multi-bottle" dentin adhesives: a microtensile bond strength and morphological study. Dent Mater 2001. 17373–380.
14. Yoshikawa T, Sano H, Burrow MF, Tagami J, Pashley DH. Effects of dentin depth and cavity configuration on bond strength. J Dent Res 1999. 78898–905.
15. Mallmann A, Soares FZM, Placido E, Ferrari M, Cardoso PEC. Microtensile dentin bond strength of self-etching and single-bottle adhesive systems in different cavity configurations. J Adhes Dent 2003. 5121–127.
16. Kim BK. The influence of the cavity configuration on the bond strength between composite resin and dentin 2007. Seoul: Yonsei University Graduate School; Master's degree.
17. Suzuki T, Finger WJ. Dentin adhesives: site of dentin vs. bonding of composite resins. Dent Mater 1988. 4379–383.
18. Burrow MF, Takakura H, Nakajima M, Inai N, Tagami J, Takatsu T. The influence of age and depth of dentin on bonding. Dent Mater 1994. 10241–246.
19. Inoue T, Takahashi H, Nishimura F. Anisotropy of tensile strengths of bovine dentin regarding dentinal tubule orientation and location. Dent Mater J 2002. 2132–43.
20. Perinka L, Sano H, Hosoda H. Dentin thickness, hardness and Ca-concentration vs. bond strength of dentin adhesives. Dent Mater 1992. 8229–233.
21. Phrukkanon S, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. The effect of dentine location and tubule orientation on the bond strengths between resin and dentine. J Dent 1999. 27265–274.
22. Prati C, Pashley DH. Dentin wetness, permeability and thickness and bond strength of adhesive systems. Am J Dent 1992. 533–38.
23. Tagami J, Tao L, Pashley DH. Correlation among dentin depth, permeability and bond strength of adhesive resins. Dent Mater 1990. 645–50.
24. Choi KK, Ferracane JL, Ryu GJ, Choi SM, Lee MJ, Park SJ. Effects of cavity configuration on composite restoration. Oper Dent 2004. 29462–469.
25. Ruttermann S, Kruger S, Raab WH, Janda R. Polymerization shrinkage and hygroscopic expansion of contemporary posterior resin-based filling materials - a comparative study. J Dent 2007. 35806–813.
26. Kishikawa R, Koiwa A, Chikawa H, Cho E, Inai N, Tagami J. Effect of cavity form on adhesion to cavity floor. Am J Dent 2005. 18311–314.

Article information Continued

Copyright © 2008 The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry
(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.

Figure 1

Figure 1

Schematic diagrams of the four groups of restoration that varied according to each C-value.

Groups with C-factor 0.25 were prepared on the flat ground dentin surfaces. For the other experimental groups, the cavities were prepared below the ground dentin surfaces.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Schematic diagram of the specimen of experimental group.

Figure 3

Figure 3

Schematic diagram of the preparation of specimen for microtensile bond test.

Figure 4

Figure 4

Schematic diagram of the specimen for microtensile bond test.

Figure 5

Figure 5

Graph of the mean microtensile bond strength (MPa) of the Fantasista groups.

Groups connected with the line are not significantly different according to the one-way ANOVA (p > 0.05)

Figure 6

Figure 6

Graph of the mean microtensile bond strength (MPa) of the Ceram-X mono groups.

Symbols (*) indicate statistically significance at p = 0.05 level

Table 1

Adhesive systems and composites used in this study

Table 1

Table 2

Chemical compositions of the adhesive systems

Table 2

Table 3

Bonding instructions of the adhesive systems

Table 3

Table 4

Four groups of restoration that varied according to each C-value

Table 4

Table 5

Mean microtensile bond strength (MPa) of the experimental groups

Table 5

Intergroup data designated with different superscript letters (a, b, c) are significantly different (p < 0.05; Tukey test).

Intragroup data designated with same superscript symbol (†) are significantly different (p < 0.05; Tukey test).