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

Yemi Kim; Jeong-won Park; Chan young Lee; Yoon jung Song; Deok Kyu Seo; Byoung-Duck Roh

doi:10.5395/JKACD.2008.33.5.472

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Restor Dent Endod > Volume 33(5); 2008 > Article

Original Article The influence of cavity configuration on the microtensile bond strength between composite resin and dentin: Yemi Kim, Jeong-won Park, Chan young Lee, Yoon jung Song, Deok Kyu Seo, Byoung-Duck Roh; 2008;33(5):-480.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2008.33.5.472
Published online: September 30, 2008

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: August 8, 2008 • Revised: August 25, 2008 • Accepted: September 1, 2008

309 Views
1 Download
4 Crossref

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
REFERENCES

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

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

Schematic diagram of the specimen of experimental group.

Figure 3

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

Figure 4

Schematic diagram of the specimen for microtensile bond test.

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

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 2

Chemical compositions of the adhesive systems

Table 3

Bonding instructions of the adhesive systems

Table 4

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

Table 5

Mean microtensile bond strength (MPa) of the experimental groups

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).

REFERENCES

1. Davidson CL, de Gee AJ. Relaxation of polymerization contraction stresses by flow in dental composites. J Dent Res. 1984;63: 146-148.Article PubMed PDF
2. Davidson CL. Resisting the curing contraction with adhesive composites. J Prosthet Dent. 1986;55: 446-447.Article PubMed
3. Feilzer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. J Dent Res. 1987;66: 1636-1639.Article PubMed PDF
4. Feilzer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Setting stresses in composites for two different curing modes. Dent Mater. 1993;9: 2-5.Article PubMed
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;13: 146-150.PubMed
6. Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Douglas WH. Do dental composites always shrink toward the light? J Dent Res. 1998;77: 1435-1445.Article PubMed PDF
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;23: 533-538.PubMed
8. Uno S, Tanka T, Inoue S. The influence of configuration factors on cavity adaptation in compomer restoration. Dent Mater J. 1999;18: 19-31.PubMed
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;21: 110-124.PubMed
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;25: 45-50.Article PubMed
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;10: 236-240.Article PubMed
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;13: 324-328.PubMed
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;17: 373-380.PubMed
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;78: 898-905.Article PubMed PDF
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;5: 121-127.PubMed
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;4: 379-383.Article PubMed
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;10: 241-246.PubMed
19. Inoue T, Takahashi H, Nishimura F. Anisotropy of tensile strengths of bovine dentin regarding dentinal tubule orientation and location. Dent Mater J. 2002;21: 32-43.Article PubMed
20. Perinka L, Sano H, Hosoda H. Dentin thickness, hardness and Ca-concentration vs. bond strength of dentin adhesives. Dent Mater. 1992;8: 229-233.Article PubMed
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;27: 265-274.Article PubMed
22. Prati C, Pashley DH. Dentin wetness, permeability and thickness and bond strength of adhesive systems. Am J Dent. 1992;5: 33-38.PubMed
23. Tagami J, Tao L, Pashley DH. Correlation among dentin depth, permeability and bond strength of adhesive resins. Dent Mater. 1990;6: 45-50.Article PubMed
24. Choi KK, Ferracane JL, Ryu GJ, Choi SM, Lee MJ, Park SJ. Effects of cavity configuration on composite restoration. Oper Dent. 2004;29: 462-469.PubMed
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;35: 806-813.Article PubMed
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;18: 311-314.

Tables & Figures

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

Schematic diagram of the specimen of experimental group.

Figure 3

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

Figure 4

Schematic diagram of the specimen for microtensile bond test.

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

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 2

Chemical compositions of the adhesive systems

Table 3

Bonding instructions of the adhesive systems

Table 4

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

Table 5

Mean microtensile bond strength (MPa) of the experimental groups

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).

REFERENCES

1. Davidson CL, de Gee AJ. Relaxation of polymerization contraction stresses by flow in dental composites. J Dent Res. 1984;63: 146-148.Article PubMed PDF
2. Davidson CL. Resisting the curing contraction with adhesive composites. J Prosthet Dent. 1986;55: 446-447.Article PubMed
3. Feilzer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. J Dent Res. 1987;66: 1636-1639.Article PubMed PDF
4. Feilzer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Setting stresses in composites for two different curing modes. Dent Mater. 1993;9: 2-5.Article PubMed
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;13: 146-150.PubMed
6. Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Douglas WH. Do dental composites always shrink toward the light? J Dent Res. 1998;77: 1435-1445.Article PubMed PDF
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;23: 533-538.PubMed
8. Uno S, Tanka T, Inoue S. The influence of configuration factors on cavity adaptation in compomer restoration. Dent Mater J. 1999;18: 19-31.PubMed
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;21: 110-124.PubMed
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;25: 45-50.Article PubMed
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;10: 236-240.Article PubMed
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;13: 324-328.PubMed
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;17: 373-380.PubMed
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;78: 898-905.Article PubMed PDF
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;5: 121-127.PubMed
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;4: 379-383.Article PubMed
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;10: 241-246.PubMed
19. Inoue T, Takahashi H, Nishimura F. Anisotropy of tensile strengths of bovine dentin regarding dentinal tubule orientation and location. Dent Mater J. 2002;21: 32-43.Article PubMed
20. Perinka L, Sano H, Hosoda H. Dentin thickness, hardness and Ca-concentration vs. bond strength of dentin adhesives. Dent Mater. 1992;8: 229-233.Article PubMed
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;27: 265-274.Article PubMed
22. Prati C, Pashley DH. Dentin wetness, permeability and thickness and bond strength of adhesive systems. Am J Dent. 1992;5: 33-38.PubMed
23. Tagami J, Tao L, Pashley DH. Correlation among dentin depth, permeability and bond strength of adhesive resins. Dent Mater. 1990;6: 45-50.Article PubMed
24. Choi KK, Ferracane JL, Ryu GJ, Choi SM, Lee MJ, Park SJ. Effects of cavity configuration on composite restoration. Oper Dent. 2004;29: 462-469.PubMed
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;35: 806-813.Article PubMed
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;18: 311-314.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Effect of different chlorhexidine application times on microtensile bond strength to dentin in Class I cavities
Hyun-Jung Kang, Ho-Jin Moon, Dong-Hoon Shin
Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics.2012; 37(1): 9. CrossRef
Effect of Er:YAG lasing on the dentin bonding strength of two-step adhesives
Byeong-Choon Song, Young-Gon Cho, Myung-Seon Lee
Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry.2011; 36(5): 409. CrossRef
Effect of Chlorhexidine Application Methods on Microtensile Bond Strength to Dentin in Class I Cavities
Y-E. Chang, D-H. Shin
Operative Dentistry.2010; 35(6): 618. CrossRef
Difference in bond strength according to filling techniques and cavity walls in box-type occlusal composite resin restoration
Eun-Joo Ko, Dong-Hoon Shin
Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry.2009; 34(4): 350. CrossRef

CanvasJS.com

ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

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

J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2008;33(5):472-480. Published online September 30, 2008

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2008.33.5.472

XML Download

Figure

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

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 Schematic diagram of the specimen of experimental group.

Figure 3 Schematic diagram of the preparation of specimen for microtensile bond test.

Figure 4 Schematic diagram of the specimen for microtensile bond test.

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 Graph of the mean microtensile bond strength (MPa) of the Ceram-X mono groups. Symbols (*) indicate statistically significance at p = 0.05 level

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

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

Table 1

Adhesive systems and composites used in this study

Table 2

Chemical compositions of the adhesive systems

Table 3

Bonding instructions of the adhesive systems

Table 4

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

Table 5

Mean microtensile bond strength (MPa) of the experimental groups

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).

Table 1 Adhesive systems and composites used in this study

Table 2 Chemical compositions of the adhesive systems

Table 3 Bonding instructions of the adhesive systems

Table 4 Four groups of restoration that varied according to each C-value

Table 5 Mean microtensile bond strength (MPa) of the experimental groups

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).