Difference in bond strength according to filling techniques and cavity walls in box-type occlusal composite resin restoration

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2009;34(4):350-355

Publication date (electronic) : 2009 July 31

doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2009.34.4.350

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

Corresponding author: Dong-Hoon Shin. Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, San 7-1, Shinbu-dong, Cheonan, 330-716, Korea. Tel: 82-41-550-1965, Fax: 82-41-550-1963, donyshin@dankook.ac.kr

Received 2008 December 15; Revised 2009 June 02; Accepted 2009 June 05.

Abstract

Bond strength depends on characteristics of bonding surface and restorative technique. The majority of studies dealing with dentin bond strength were carried out on flat bonding surface, therefore, difference of bond strength between axial wall and pulpal wall is not clear yet. This study evaluated bonding difference between cavity walls in class I composite resin restoration with different filling techniques.

Twenty extracted caries-free human third molars were used. Cavities were prepared in 6 × 4 × 3 mm box-type and divided into four groups according to filling technique and bonding surface: Group I; bulk filling - pulpal wall, Group II; bulk filling - axial wall, Group III; incremental filling - pulpal wall, Group IV; incremental filling - axial wall.

Cavities were filled with Filtek Z250®(3M/ESPE., USA) and Clearfill SE bond®(Kuraray, Japan). After 24 hour-storage in 37℃ water, the resin bonded teeth were sectioned bucco-lingualy at the center of cavity.

Specimens were vertically sectioned into 1.0 × 1.0 mm thick serial sticks perpendicular to the bond surface using a low-speed diamond saw (Accutom 50, Struers, Copenhagen, Denmark) under water cooling. The trimmed specimens were then attached to the testing device and in turn, was placed in a universal testing machine (EZ test, Shimadzu Co., Kyoto, Japan) for micro-tensile testing at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. The results obtained were statistically analyzed using 2-way ANOVA and t-test at a significance level of 95%.

The results were as follows:

1. There was no significant difference between bulk filling and incremental filling.

2. There was no significant difference between pulpal wall and axial wall, either.

Within the limit of this study, it was concluded that microtensile bond strength was not affected by the filling technique and the site of cavity walls.

Keywords: Bond strength; Bonding surface; Cavity wall; Filling technique; Microtensile test

References

1. Suzuki T, Finger WJ. Dentin adhesives: Site of dentin vs bonding of composite resins. Dent Mater 1988. 4379–383.

2. Tagami J, Tao L, Pashley DH. Correlation among dentin depth, permeability, and bond strength of adhesive resins. Dent Mater 1990. 645–50.

3. Pereira PN, Okuda M, Sano H, Yoshikawa T, Burrow MF, Tagami J. Effect of intrinsic wetness and regional difference on dentin bond strength. Dent Mater 1999. 1546–53.

4. Nakajima M, Shono T, Zheng L, Tagami J, Pashley DH. Effect of moist vs dry bonding to normal vs cariesaffected dentin with Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus. J Dent Res 1999. 781298–1303.

5. 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.

6. Ogata M, Okuda M, Nakajima M, Pereira PNR, Sono H, Tagami J. Influence of the direction of tubules on bond strength to dentin. Oper Dent 2001. 2627–35.

7. Pashley DH, Sano H, Ciucchi B, Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM. Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents: a review. Dent Mater 1995. 11117–125.

8. Sattabanasuk V, Vachiramon V, Qian F, Armstrong SR. Resin-dentin bond strength as related to different surface preparation methods. J Dent 2007. 35467–475.

9. 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.

10. Nikolaenko SA, Lohbauer U, Roggendorf M, Petschelt A, Dasch W, Frankenberger R. Influence of c-factor and layering technique on microtensile bond strength to dentin. Dent Mater 2004. 20579–585.

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

12. Prévost AP, Fuller JL, Peterson LC. Composite and intermediate resin tag formation in acid-etched enamel: A scanning electron microscopy evaluation. J Prosthet Dent 1984. 52204–207.

13. Gwinnett AJ. Smear layer: Morphological considerations. Oper Dent Suppl 1984. 32–12.

14. Kanca J 3rd. Resin bonding to wet substrate 1. Bonding to dentin. Quintessence Int 1992. 2339–41.

15. Pashley DH, Carvalho RM, Sano H, Nakajima M, Yoshiyama M, Shono Y, Fernandes CA, Tay F. The microtensile bond test. A review. J Adhes Dent 1999. 1299–309.

16. Matsumoto H, Gres JE, Marker VA, Okabe T, Ferracane JL, Harvey GA. Depth of cure of visible light-cured resin: clinical simulation. J Prosthet Dent 1986. 55574–578.

17. He Z, Shimada Y, Tagami J. The effects of cavity size and incremental technique on micro-tensile bond strength of resin composite in class I cavities. Dent Mater 2007. 23533–538.

18. Loguercio AD, Reis A, Ballester RY. Polymerization shrinkage: effects of constraint and filling technique in composite restoration. Dent Mater 2004. 20236–243.

19. Tjan AH, Bergh BH, Linder C. Effect of various incremental techniques on the marginal adaptation of class II composite resin restoration. J Prosthet Dent 1992. 6762–66.

20. Sano H, Shono H, 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.

21. Ogata M, Nakajima M, Sano H, Tagami J. Effect of dentin primer application on regional bond strength to cervical wedge-shaped cavity walls. Oper Dent 1999. 2481–88.

22. Yoshiyama M, Matauo T, Ebisu S, Pashley D. Regional bond strengths of self-etching/self-priming adhesive systems. J Dent 1998. 26609–616.

23. Watanabe LG, Marshall GW, Marshal J. Dentin shear strength: effects of tubule orientation and intraoral location. Dent Mater 1996. 12109–115.

24. Kim Y, Park J, Lee C, Song Y, Seo DK, Roh BD. The influence of cavity configuration on the microtensile bond strength between composite resin and dentin. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2008. 33472–479.

25. Koo BJ, Shin DH. The effect of c-factor and volume on microleakage of composite resin restorations with enamel margins. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2006. 31452–459.

26. Cho YG, Yoo SH. Comparative enamel bond strength between light-and dual-cured composites bonded by self-etching adhesives. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2007. 321–8.

27. Jung MR, Choi GW, Park SH, Park SJ. The bonding durability of total etching adhesives on dentin. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2007. 32365–375.

28. Park JS, Kim JS, Kim MS, Son HH, Kwon HC, Cho BH. Aging effect on the microtensile bond strength of self-etching adhesives. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2006. 31415–425.