Barros Y, Bandéca M, Millán A, Siqueira F, Kuga M, Fernandez E, Chaple GAM, Borges A, Tonetto M

Language: English
References: 17
Page: 1-13
PDF size: 217.52 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The clinical longevity of tooth restoration —whether directly or indirectly using composites— greatly depends on the quality and stability of the marginal adaptation. Even today, dental restoration failure is a major complication in everyday dental practice.
Objective: To evaluate the effect of restoration techniques on the microtensile bond strength and marginal integrity of class II cavities.
Methods: An experimental in vitro investigation was made. Preparations (5 × 4 × 2 mm) below the cement-enamel junction were performed in 45 human maxillary premolars (n= 15) that were the sample of the study selected to random. The G1 group incrementally received Spectrum TPH3 Dentsply De trey in three horizontal incremental layers. The G2 group received a bulk restoration technique (one 4-mm increment of Surefill SDR flow plus one 1-mm horizontal capping layer of Spectrum TPH3 Dentsply De trey using a metal matrix band. For the G3 group, impressions were made from each cavity preparation, and Spectrum was used to complete an indirect composite restoration. After storage (24 h/37 °C), the proximal surfaces of each tooth were polished with Sof-Lex disks. For microtensile bond strength testing, all premolars were sectioned into resin-dentine beams (0.8 mm2) and were tested under tension (0.5 mm/min).
Results: Microtensile bond strength testing and marginal integrity values were not statistically significantly affected by the type of restoration technique used (p> 0.05).
Conclusions: The Surefill SDR flow that used a capping layer made of conventional composite can be an alternative to reduce procedure durations as well as additional steps in the restorative technique.

REFERENCES

1. Angeletaki F, Gkogkos A, Papazoglou E, Kloukos D. Direct versus indirect inlay/onlay composite restorations in posterior teeth. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;5312-21.

2. Neppelenbroek KH. The clinical challenge of achieving marginal adaptation in direct and indirect restoration. J Appl Oral Sci. 2015;23(5):448-9.

3. Opdam NJ, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, Cenci MS, Bottenberg P, Pallesen U, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014;93(10):943-9.

4. Astvaldsdottir A, Dagerhamn J, van Dijken JW, Naimi-Akbar A, Sandborgh-Englund G, Tranaeus S, et al. Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults - A systematic review. J Dent. 2015;43(8):934-54.

5. He J, Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila L Effect of low-shrinkage monomers on the physicochemical properties of experimental composite resin. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand. 2018;4(1):30-7.

6. Taubock TT, Jager F, Attin T. Polymerization shrinkage and shrinkage force kinetics of high- and low-viscosity dimethacrylate- and ormocer-based bulk-fill resin composites. Odontology. 2018. doi: 10.1007/s10266-018-0369-y

7. Correa Netto LR, Borges AL, Guimaraes HB, Almeida ER, Poskus LT, Silva EM. Marginal integrity of restorations produced with a model composite based on polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane (POSS). J Appl Oral Sci. 2015;23(5):450-8.

8. Rocha Maia R, Oliveira D, D'Antonio T, Qian F, Skiff F. Comparison of lighttransmittance in dental tissues and dental composite restorations using incremental layering build-up with varying enamel resin layer thickness. Restor Dent Endod. 2018;43(2):e22.

9. Karaman E, Keskin B, Inan U. Three-year clinical evaluation of class II posterior composite restorations placed with different techniques and flowable composite linings in endodontically treated teeth. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(2):709-716.

10. Agarwal RS, Hiremath H, Agarwal J, Garg A. Evaluation of cervical marginal and internal adaptation using newer bulk fill composites: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2015;18(1):56-61.

11. Benetti AR, Havndrup-Pedersen C, Honore D, Pedersen MK, Pallesen U. Bulk-fill resin composites: polymerization contraction, depth of cure, and gap formation. Oper Dent. 2015;40(2):190-200.

12. de Assis FS, Lima SN, Tonetto MR, Bhandi SH, Pinto SC, Malaquias P, et al. Evaluation of Bond Strength, Marginal Integrity, and Fracture Strength of Bulk- vs Incrementally-filled Restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2016;18(4):317-323.

13. de Assis FS, Lima SN, Tonetto MR, Bhandi SH, Pinto SC, Malaquias P, et al. Evaluation of Bond Strength, Marginal Integrity, and Fracture Strength of Bulk- vs Incrementally-filled Restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2016;18(4):317-23. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a36516.

14. Francis AV, Braxton AD, Ahmad W, Tantbirojn D, Simon JF, Versluis A. Cuspal Flexure and Extent of Cure of a Bulk-fill Flowable Base Composite. Oper Dent. 2015;40(5):515-523.

15. Tomaszewska IM, Kearns JO, Ilie N, Fleming GJ. Bulk fill restoratives: to cap or not to cap--that is the question? J Dent. 2015;43(3):309-16.

16. Czasch P, Ilie N. In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(1):227-35.

17. van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. Randomized 3-year clinical evaluation of Class I and II posterior resin restorations placed with a bulk-fill resin composite and a one-step selfetching adhesive. J Adhes Dent. 2015;17(1):81-8.