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
Effect of film thickness of resin cement on bonding efficiency in indirect composite restoration


Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

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

Effect of film thickness of resin cement on bonding efficiency in indirect composite restoration

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2010;35(2):69-79
Publication date (electronic) : 2010 March 31
doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2010.35.2.069
Sang-Hyuck Lee, Gi-Woon Choi, Kyung-Kyu Choi
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Division of Dentistry, Graduate of Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea.
Corresponding Author: Kyung-Kyu Choi. Professor of Division of Dentistry, Graduate school of KyungHee University, 1, Hoegi Dong, Dongdaemun Gu, Seoul, 130-702, Korea. Tel: 82-2-958-9337, choikkyu@khu.ac.kr
Received 2009 October 14; Revised 2010 February 28; Accepted 2010 March 05.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of film thickness of various resin cements on bonding efficiency in indirect composite restoration by measurement of microtensile bond strength, polymerization shrinkage, flexural strength and modulus, fractographic FE-SEM analysis. Experimental groups were divided according to film thickness (< 50 µm-control, 50 µm-T50, 100 µm-T100, 150 µm-T150) using composite-based resin cements (Variolink II, Duo-Link) and adhesive-based resin cements (Panavia F, Rely X Unicem). The data was analyzed using ANOVA and Duncan's multiple comparison test (p < 0.05).

The results were as follows;

  1. Variolink II showed higher microtensile bond strength than that of adhesive-based resin cements in all film thickness (p < 0.05) but Duo-Link did not show significant difference except control group (p < 0.05).

  2. Microtensile bond strength of composite-based resin cements were decreased significantly according to increasing film thickness (p < 0.05) but adhesive-based resin cements did not show significant difference among film thickness (p > 0.05).

  3. Panavia F showed significantly lower polymerization shrinkage than other resin cements (p < 0.05).

  4. Composite-based resin cements showed significantly higher flexural strength and modulus than adhesive-based resin cements (p < 0.05).

  5. FE-SEM examination showed uniform adhesive layer and well developed resin tags in composite-based resin cements but unclear adhesive layer and poorly developed resin tags in adhesive-based resin cements. In debonded surface examination, composite-based resin cements showed mixed failures but adhesive-based resin cements showed adhesive failures.

Keywords: Resin cement; Film thickness; Indirect composite restoration; Bonding efficiency

References

1. Kramer N, Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R. Adhesive luting of indirect restorations. Am J Dent 2000. 1360D–76D.
2. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Crispin BJ. Dental luting agents: a review of the current literature. J Prosthet Dent 1998. 80280–301.
3. Diaz-Arnold AM, Vargas MA, Haselton DR. Current status of luting agents for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1999. 81135–141.
4. Inokoshi S, Willems G, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G. Dual-cure luting composites. Part I. Filler particle distribution. J Oral Rehabil 1993. 20133–146.
5. Sjogren G, Molin M, Van Dijken J, Bergman M. Ceramic inlays(Cerec) cemented with either a dual-cured or a chemically cured composite resin luting agent. A 2-year clinical study. Acta Odontol Scand 1995. 53325–330.
6. Casson AM, Glyn Jones JC, Youngson CC, Wood DJ. The effect of luting media on fracture resistance of a flame sprayed all-ceramic crown. J Dent 2001. 29539–544.
7. Burke FJ. The effect of variations in bonding procedure on fracture resistance of dentin-bonded all-ceramic crowns. Quintessence Int 1995. 26293–300.
8. Dietschi D, Maeder M, Meyer JM, Holz J. In vitro resistance to fracture of porcelain inlays bonded to tooth. Quintessence Int 1990. 21823–831.
9. Cook WD, Thomasz F. A photocured composite resin with an apparent infinite depth of cure. Aust Dent J 1983. 28243.
10. 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. 28215–235.
11. Sensat ML, Brackett WW, Meinberg TA, Beatty MW. Clinical evaluation of two adhesive composite cements for the suppression of dentinal cold sensitivity. J Prosthet Dent 2002. 8850–53.
12. Ogawa T, Tanaka M, Matsuya S, Aizawa S, Koyano K. Setting characteristics of five autopolymerizing resins measured by an oscillating rheometer. J Prosthet Dent 2001. 85170–176.
13. Sanares AM, Itthagarun A, King NM, Tay FR, Pashley DH. Adverse surface interactions between one-bottle light-cured adhesive and chemical-cured composites. Dent Mater 2001. 17542–556.
14. Kious AR, Roberts HW, Brackett WW. Film thickness of recently introduced luting cements. J Prosthet Dent 2009. 101189–192.
15. Goracci C, Cury AH, Cantoro A, Papacchini F, Tay FR, Ferrari M. Microtensile bond strength and interfacial properties of self-etching and self-adhesive resin cements used to lute composite onlays under different seating forces. J Adhes Dent 2006. 8327–335.
16. Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R, Meister C, Petschelt A. In : Mörmann WH, ed. Curing contraction in thin bonding composite resin layers. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer Restoration. The state of art of the Cerec method 1991. Berlin: Quintessence; 577–590.
17. Lutz F, Krejci I, Barbakow F. Quality and durability of marginal adaptation in bonded composite restorations. Dent Mater 1991. 7107–113.
18. Davidson CL, De Gee AJ. Relaxation of polymerization contraction stresses by flow in dental composites. J Dent Res 1984. 63146–148.
19. Davidson CL. Resisting the curing contraction with adhesive composites. J Prosthet Dent 1986. 55446–447.
20. Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of restoration. J Dent Res 1987. 661636–1639.
21. Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Increased wall-to-wall curing contraction in thin bonded resin layers. J Dent Res 1989. 6848–50.
22. Gemalmaz D, Kkrer D. In vivo and in vitro evaluation of marginal fit of class II ceromer inlays. J Oral Rehabil 2006. 33436–442.
23. D'Arcangelo C, Cinelli M, De Angelis F, D'Amario M. The effect of resin cement film thickness on the pullout strength of a fiber-reinforced post system. J Prosthet Dent 2007. 98193–198.
24. Pashley DH, Sano H, Ciucchi B, Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM. Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents:a review. Dent Mater 1995. 11117–125.
25. Li ZC, White SN. Mechanical properties of dental luting cements. J Prosthet Dent 1999. 81597–609.
26. Shono Y, Ogawa T, Terashita M, Carvalho RM, Pashley EL, Pashley DH. Regional measurement of resin-dentin bonding as an array. J Dent Res 1999. 78699–705.
27. ISO 4049 : International Standard Dentistry Resin-based dental filling materials 1998.
28. Nakabayashi N, Pashley DH. Hybridization of dental hard tissues 1998. Tokyo: Quintessence; 51–53.
29. Carvalho RM, Pegoraro TA, Tay FR, Pegoraro LF, Silva NRFA, Pashley DH. Adhesive permeability affects coupling of resin cements that utilise self-etching primers to dentine. J Dent 2004. 3255–65.
30. Audenino G, Bresciano ME, Bassi F, Carossa S. In vitro evaluation of fit of adhesively luted ceramic inlays. Int J Prosthodont 1999. 12342–347.
31. Molin MK, Karlsson SL, Kristiansen MS. Influence of film thickness on joint bend strength of a ceramic/resin composite joint. Dent Mater 1996. 12245–249.
32. Wassell RW, Gagliano G. Effects of adhesive fixed prosthesis retainer design on resultant resin luting agent thickness. J Prosthet Dent 1998. 80479–484.
33. Choi KK, Condon JR, Ferracane JL. The effects of adhesive thickness on polymerization contraction stress of composite. J Dent Res 2000. 79812–817.
34. Tay FR, Gwinnett AJ, Pang KM, Wei SH. Resin permeation into acid-conditioned, moist, and dry dentin: a paradigm using water-free adhesive primers. J Dent Res 1996. 751034–1044.
35. Cho MW, Park SH, K JR, Choi KK. The bonding durability of resin cements . J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2007. 32343–355.
36. Mak YF, Lai SCN, Cheung GSP, Chan AW, Tay FR, Pashley DH. Micro-tensile bond testing of resin cements to dentin and an indirect resin composite. Dent Mater 2002. 18609–621.
37. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Yiu CKY, Sanares AM, Wei SW. Factors contributing to the incompatibility between simplified-step adhesives and self-cured or dual-cured composites. Part I. Single-step self-etch adhesive. J Adhes Dent 2003. 527–40.
38. Ikemura K, Endo T. Effect on adhesion of new polymerization initiator systems comprising 5- monosubstituted barbituric acids, aromatic sulphonate amides, and tert-butyl peroxymaleic acid in dental adhesive resin. J Appl Polym Sci 1999. 721655–1668.
39. Nyunt MM, Imai Y. Adhesion to dentin with resin using sulfinic acid initiator system. Dent Mater J 1996. 15175–182.
40. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Suh BI, Carvalho RM, Itthagarun A. Single-step adhesives are permeable membranes. J Dent 2002. 30371–382.
41. Choi SM, Park SH, Choi KK, Park SJ. Effect of the additional application of a resin layer on dentin bonding using single-step adhesives. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2007. 32313–326.
42. Kim DW, Park SJ, Choi KK. Compatibility of self-etching dentin adhesives with resin luting cements. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2005. 30493–504.
43. Tezvergil-Mutluay A, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK. Degree of conversion of dual-cure luting resins light-polymerized through various materials. Acta Odontol Scand 2007. 65201–205.
44. Kumbuloglu O, Lassila LV, User A, Vallittu PK. A study of the physical and chemical properties of four resin composite luting cements. Int J Prosthodont 2004. 17357–363.
45. De Munck J, Vargas M, Van Landuyt K, Hikita K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Bonding of an auto-adhesive luting material to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 2004. 20963–971.
46. Yang B, Ludwig K, Adelung R, Kern M. Micro- tensile bond strength of three luting resins to human regional dentin. Dent Mater 2006. 2245–56.
47. Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Polymerization shrinkage and contraction stress of dental resin composites. Dent Mater 2005. 211150–1157.

Article information Continued

Copyright © 2010 Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry

Figure 1

Figure 1

Schematic presentation of µTBS test.

Figure 2

Figure 2

FE-SEM images of resin cement/dentin interface (×1000). Composite-based resin cements(a, b) showed adhesive layer, uniform hybrid layer and well developed resin tags. Adhesive-based resin cements(c, d) showed uncertain hybrid layer and slender resin tags (CO: Composite overlay, RC: Resin cement, AD: Adhesive layer, HL: Hybrid layer, D: Dentin).

Figure 3

Figure 3

FE-SEM images of debonded interface (×1000). Composite-based resin cements(a, b) showed mixed failure at top and bottom of hybrid layer. Opened dentinal tubules, resin cement and adhesive layer could be seen. Adhesive-based resin cements(c, d) showed adhesive failure at hybrid layer. Partially opened dentinal tubules and void formation could be seen (RC: Resin cement, AD: Adhesive layer, DT: Dentinal tubule, HL: Hybrid layer).

Table 1

Resin cements used in this study

Table 1

Table 2

Adhesive system of resin cements used in this study

Table 2

Table 3

Two-way ANOVA result between factors of resin cements and film thickness

Table 3

Table 4

Microtensile bond strengths for experimental groups (MPa ± SD)

Table 4

Groups with the same superscripts letters indicate no significant difference (p > 0.05), according to resin cements (small letters) or film thickness (capital letters).

Table 5

Polymerization shrinkage, flexural strength and flexural modulus of resin cements

Table 5

Mean values for each test with same subscript were not significantly different (p > 0.05)