International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  17 (2024)
Volume  16 (2023)
Volume  15 (2022)
Volume  14 (2021)
Volume  13 (2020)
Volume  12 (2019)
Volume  11 (2018)
Volume  10 (2017)
Volume  9 (2016)
Volume  8 (2015)
Volume  7 (2014)
Volume  6 (2013)
Volume  5 (2012)
Volume  4 (2011)
Volume  3 (2010)
Volume  2 (2009)
Volume  1 (2008)
Related articles

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 2 ( March-April, 2022 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Tensile Bond Strength and Marginal Integrity of a Self-adhering and a Self-etch Adhesive Flowable Composite after Artificial Thermomechanical Aging

Veerabadhran Maheshmathian, Kumaragurubaran Preethi, Thiyagarajan Gayatrikumary

Keywords : Adhesive, Artificial aging, Bond strength, Composite resin, Microleakage

Citation Information : Maheshmathian V, Preethi K, Gayatrikumary T. Tensile Bond Strength and Marginal Integrity of a Self-adhering and a Self-etch Adhesive Flowable Composite after Artificial Thermomechanical Aging. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022; 15 (2):204-209.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2370

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-04-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: This study aims to compare the self-etch adhesive (SEA) and self-adhesive flowable composite (SAF) concerning tensile bond strength (TBS) and marginal integrity by microleakage (µLK) test in deciduous molars after artificial thermomechanical aging. Materials and methods: 120 extracted primary molars were collected. Sixty teeth were mounted for testing TBS. Teeth were restored using SAF (n = 30) and SEA-conventional flowable (CF) composite (n = 30) and subjected to artificial thermal aging. Half the teeth (n = 15) from each material were subjected to mechanical loading (SEA-TBS-L and SAF-TBS-L). The specimens with no-load (NL) served as control (SEA-TBS-NL and SAF-TBS-NL). Class V cavity prepared and restored with SAF (n = 30) and SEA-CF (n = 30) to test µLK after thermal aging. The subgroups were as same as the TBS based on with or without mechanical loading (SEA-µLK-L, SEA-µLK-NL, SAF-µLK-L, SAF-µLK-L; n = 15 each). µLK was determined by employing the dye immersion technique. Results: Concerning TBS, there is a significant difference between SEA and SAF with load or no load. Concerning µLK, there is a significant difference between the materials under loading and no difference was found when not mechanically loaded. Also, concerning both TBS and µLK, a significant difference was observed between the load and no-load subgroups within each material. Conclusion: SAF exhibited higher TBS than the SEA. Mechanical loading not only adversely affected the TBS but also increased the µLK of the compared materials. Clinical significance: Restoring the primary teeth with SAF not only shortens the laborious operatory time but also yields good clinical serviceability with the good bond strength and minimal µLK, thus preventing premature loss of teeth and consequential malocclusion.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Sakaguchi RL, Powers JM. Craig's restorative dental materials, 13th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Mosby; 2012. pp. 327–344.
  2. Dhanyakumar S. Comparative evaluation of micro-shear bond strength of adhesive resins to coronal dentin versus dentin at the floor of pulp chamber – an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2006;9(4):123–130. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.42313
  3. Eliades G, Vougiouklakis G, Palaghias G. Heterogeneous distribution of single-bottle adhesive monomers in the resin-dentin interdiffusion zone. Dent Mater 2001;17(4):277–283. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(00)00082-8
  4. Ameri H, Ghavamnasiri M, Abdoli E. Effects of load cycling on the microleakage of beveled and nonbeveled occlusal margins in class V resin-based composite restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2010;11(5):025–032. DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-11-5-25
  5. Van Meerbeek B, Braem M, Lambrechts P, et al. Evaluation of two dentin adhesives in cervical lesions. J Prosthet Dent 1993;70(4): 308–314. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(93)90213-8
  6. Troconis CCM, Perez SM. Bond strength of self-adhesive flowable resin composites to tooth structure: a systematic review. Braz J Oral Sci 2021;20:e213641. DOI:10.20396/bjos.v20i00.8663641
  7. David C, Cardoso de Cardoso G, Isolan CP, et al. Bond strength of self-adhesive flowable composite resins to dental tissues: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. J Prosthet Dent 2021;S0022–3913(21)00102–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.02.020
  8. International Organization for Standardization, ISO/TS 11405. Dentistry – Testing of adhesion to tooth structure. Geneva: ISO; 2015.
  9. Stalin A, Varma BR, Stalin A, et al. Comparative evaluation of tensile-bond strength, fracture mode and microleakage of fifth, and sixth generation adhesive systems in primary dentition. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2005;23(2):83–88. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.16448
  10. Swathi A, Jayaprakash T, Chandrasekhar V. Effect of single and multiple consecutive applications of all-in-one adhesive on tensile bond strength to dentin. J Interdiscip Dent 2014;4:81–84. DOI: 10.4103/2229-5194.142942
  11. Li H, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. The effect of load cycling on the nanoleakage of dentin bonding systems. Dent Mater 2002;18(2):111–119. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(01)00029-x
  12. Naga AA, Yousef M, Ramadan R, et al. Does the use of a novel self-adhesive flowable composite reduce nanoleakage? Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2015;7:55–64. DOI: 10.2147/CCIDE.S80462
  13. Bektas OO, Eren D, Akin EG, et al. Evaluation of a self-adhering flowable composite in terms of micro-shear bond strength and microleakage. Acta Odontol Scand 2013;71:541–546. DOI: 10.3109/00016357.2012.696697
  14. Wang R, Shi Y, Li T, et al. Adhesive interfacial characteristics and the related bonding performance of four self-etching adhesives with different functional monomers applied to dentin. J Dent 2017;62:72–80. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.05.010
  15. Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Nagaoka N, et al. Adhesive interfacial interaction affected by different carbon-chain monomers. Dent Mater 2013;29:888–897. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2013.05.006
  16. Gönülol N, Ertan Ertaş E, Yılmaz et al. Effect of thermal aging on microleakage of current flowable composite resins. AJ Dent Sci 2015;10:376–382. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2014.03.003
  17. Rengo C, Goracci C, Juloski J, et al. Influence of phosphoric acid etching on microleakage of a self-etch adhesive and a self-adhering composite. Aust Dent J 2012;57(2):220–226. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2012.01689.x
  18. Muñoz-Viveros CA, Campillo-Funollet M. Shear bond strength of vertise flow to dentin enamel substrates [Abstract]. In: Vertise Flow Self–Adhering Flowable Composite Portfolio of Scientific Research. Kerr Dental 2010. pp. 12–13.
  19. Bui H, Nguyen TD, Qian X, et al. Bond Strength of a New Self–Adhering Composite [Abstract]. In: Vertise Flow Self–Adhering Flowable Composite Portfolio of Scientific Research. Kerr Dental 2010:18–19.
  20. Osorio R, Toledano M, Osorio E, et al. Effect of load cycling and in vitro degradation on resin-dentin bonds using a self-etching primer. J Biomed Mater Res A 2005;72(4):399–408. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.30274
  21. Belli S, Ozcopur B, Yesilyurt, et al. Effects of cyclic loading and an intermediate material on micro-tensile bond strengths of a dual-cure resin cement to dentin resin-coated with all-in-one adhesives. J Dent Sci 2012;7:33–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2012.01.014
  22. Nikaido T, Kunzelmann KH, Chen H, et al. Evaluation of thermal cycling and mechanical loading on bond strength of a self-etching primer system to dentin. Dent Mater 2002;18:269–275. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(01)00048-3
  23. Frankenberger R, Pashley DH, Reich SM, et al. Characterisation of resin-dentin interfaces by compressive cycling loading. Biomaterials 2005;26:2043–2052. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.07.003.
  24. Wei YJ, Silikas N, Zhang ZT, et al. Hygroscopic dimensional changes of self-adhering and new resin-matrix composites during water sorption/desorption cycles. Dent Mater 2011;27(3):259–266. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.015
  25. Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Lee MS, et al. Can hygroscopic expansion compensate polymerization shrinkage? Part I. Dent Mater 2011;27:126–133. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.09.007.
  26. Davidson CL, Feilzer AJ. Polymerization shrinkage and polymerization shrinkage stress in polymer-based restoratives. J Dent 1997;25:435–440. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(96)00063-2.
  27. Bortolotto T, Mileo A, Krejci I. Strength of the bond as a predictor of marginal performance: an in vitro evaluation of contemporary adhesives. Dent Mater 2010;26:242–248. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.001
  28. Rahmanifard M, Khodadadi E, Khafri S, et al. Comparative evaluation of self-adhering flowable and conventional flowable composites using different adhesive systems. Caspian J Dent Res 2019;8:49–55. DOI: 10.22088/cjdr.8.2.49
  29. Pazinatto FB, Campos BB, Costa LC, et al. Effect of the number of thermocycles on microleakage of resin composite restorations. Pesqui Odontol Bras 2003;17(4):337–341. DOI: 10.1590/s1517-74912003000400008
  30. Lundin SA, Norén JG. Marginal leakage in occlusally loaded, etched, class-II composite resin restorations. Acta Odontol Scand 1991;49(4):247–254. DOI: 10.3109/00016359109005915
  31. Abdalla Al, Davidson CL. Effect of mechanical load cycling on the marginal integrity of adhesive class I resin composite restorations. J Dent 1996;24:87–90. DOI: 10.1016/0300-5712(95)00041-0
  32. Mandras RS, Retief DH, Russell CM. The effects of thermal and occlusal stresses on the microleakage of the Scotchbond 2 dentinal bonding system. Dent Mater 1991;7(1):63–67. DOI: 10.1016/0109-5641(91)90030-3
  33. Hakimeh S, Vaidyanathan J, Houpt ML, et al. Microleakage of compomer class V restorations: effect of load cycling, thermal cycling, and cavity shape differences. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83(2):194–203. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(00)80012-8
  34. Yap AU, Mok BY, Pearson G. An in vitro microleakage study of the ‘bonded-base’ restorative technique. J Oral Rehab 1997;24(3): 230–236. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.1997.00472.x
  35. Prati C, Tao L, Simpson M, et al. Permeability and microleakage of Class II resin composite restorations. J Dent 1994;22(1):49–56. DOI: 10.1016/0300-5712(94)90147-3
  36. Anderson D. Measurement of stress in mastication II. J Dent Res 1956;35:671. DOI: 10.1177/00220345560350050301
  37. Yap AU, Stokes AN, Pearson G. An in vitro microleakage study of a new multi-purpose dental adhesive system. J Oral Rehabil 1996;23:302–308. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1996.tb00857.x.
  38. Sachdeva P, Goswami M, Singh D. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength and nanoleakage of conventional and self-adhering flowable composites to primary teeth dentin. Contemp Clin Dent 2016;7(3):326–331. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.188549
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.