Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry (대한치과보존학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of internal adaptation of dental adhesive restorations using micro-CT

  • Kwon, Oh-Hyun (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Yonsei University School of Dentistry and Oral Science Research Center) ;
  • Park, Sung-Ho (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Yonsei University School of Dentistry and Oral Science Research Center)
  • Received : 2011.12.02
  • Accepted : 2012.02.06
  • Published : 2012.03.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: The internal adaptation of composite restorations with or without resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) was analyzed non-destructively using Microcomputed tomography (micro-CT). Materials and Methods: Thirty intact human teeth were used. The specimens were divided into 3 groups. In the control group, the cavities were etched with 10% phosphoric acid for 15 sec. Composite resin was filled into the cavity without adhesive. In group 1, light cured glass ionomer cement (GIC, Fuji II LC, GC) was applied as a base. The cavities were then etched, bonded, light cured and filled with composites. In group 2, the cavities were then etched, bonded, light cured and filled with composites without base application. They were immersed in a 25% silver nitrate solution. Micro-CT was performed before and after mechanical loading. One-way ANOVA with Duncan analysis was used to compare the internal adaptation between the groups before or after loading. A paired t-test was used to compare internal adaptation before and after mechanical loading. All statistical inferences were made within the 95% confidence interval. Results: The silver nitrate solution successfully penetrated into the dentinal tubules from the pulp spaces, and infiltrated into the gap between restoration and pulpal floor. Group 2 showed a lower adaptation than the control group and group 1 (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the control group and group 1. For all groups, there was a significant difference between before and after mechanical loading (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The internal adaptation before and after loading was better when composites were bonded to tooth using adhesive than composites based with RMGIC.

Keywords

References

  1. Retief DH. Do adhesives prevent microleakage? Int Dent J 1994;44:19-26.
  2. Friedl KH, Schmalz G, Hiller KA, Mortazavi F. Marginal adaptation of composite restorations versus hybrid ionomer/composite sandwich restorations. Oper Dent 1997;22:21-29.
  3. Tolidis K, Nobecourt A, Randall RC. Effect of a resin-modified glass ionomer liner on volumetric polymerization shrinkage of various composites. Dent Mater 1998;14:417-423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(99)00016-0
  4. Krejci I, Lutz F, Krejci D. The influence of different base materials on marginal adaptation and wear of conventional Class II composite resin restorations. Quintessence Int 1988;19:191-198.
  5. Unemori M, Matsuya Y, Akashi A, Goto Y, Akamine A. Composite resin restoration and postoperative sensitivity: clinical follow-up in an undergraduate program. J Dent 2001;29:7-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(00)00037-3
  6. van Dijken JW. A 6-year clinical evaluation of Class I poly-acid modified resin composite/resin composite laminate restorations cured with a two-step curing technique. Dent Mater 2003;19:423-428. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00086-6
  7. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA. Longevity and reasons for failure of sandwich and totaletch posterior composite resin restorations. J Adhes Dent 2007;9:469-475.
  8. Kwon OH, Kim DH, Park SH. The influence of elastic modulus of base material on the marginal adaptation of direct composite restoration. Oper Dent 2010;35:441-447. https://doi.org/10.2341/09-372-L
  9. Hayashi M, Wilson NH. Marginal deterioration as a predictor of failure of a posterior composite. Eur J Oral Sci 2003;111:155-162. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0722.2003.00020.x
  10. Souza-Junior EJ, de Souza-Regis MR, Alonso RC, de Freitas AP, Sinhoreti MA, Cunha LG. Effect of the curing method and composite volume on marginal and internal adaptation of composite restoratives. Oper Dent 2011;36:231-238. https://doi.org/10.2341/10-107-L
  11. Carvalho RM, Pereira JC, Yoshiyama M, Pashley DH. A review of polymerization contraction: the influence of stress development versus stress relief. Oper Dent 1996;21:17-24.
  12. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Water treeing-a potential mechanism for degradation of dentin adhesives. Am J Dent 2003;16:6-12.
  13. Ratih DN, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Minimizing dentinal fluid flow associated with gap formation. J Dent Res 2006;85:1027-1031. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910608501110
  14. Banomyong D, Palamara JE, Messer HH, Burrow MF. Sealing ability of occlusal resin composite restoration using four restorative procedures. Eur J Oral Sci 2008;116:571-578. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2008.00570.x
  15. Ciucchi B, Bouillaguet S, Delaloye M, Holz J. Volume of the internal gap formed under composite restorations in vitro. J Dent 1997;25:305-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(96)00032-2
  16. Peliz MI, Duarte S Jr, Dinelli W. Scanning electron microscope analysis of internal adaptation of materials used for pulp protection under composite resin restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2005;17:118-128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2005.tb00098.x
  17. Ishibashi K, Ozawa N, Tagami J, Sumi Y. Swept-source optical coherence tomography as a new tool to evaluate defects of resin-based composite restorations. J Dent 2011;39:543-548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2011.05.005
  18. Sun J, Eidelman N, Lin-Gibson S. 3D mapping of polymerization shrinkage using X-ray micro-computed tomography to predict microleakage. Dent Mater 2009;25:314-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2008.07.010
  19. Zeiger DN, Sun J, Schumacher GE, Lin-Gibson S. Evaluation of dental composite shrinkage and leakage in extracted teeth using X-ray microcomputed tomography. Dent Mater 2009;25:1213-1220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.04.007
  20. Kakaboura A, Rahiotis C, Watts D, Silikas N, Eliades G. 3D-marginal adaptation versus setting shrinkage in light-cured microhybrid resin composites. Dent Mater 2007;23:272-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.01.020
  21. Eden E, Topaloglu-Ak A, Cuijpers V, Frencken JE. Micro- CT for measuring marginal leakage of Class II resin composite restorations in primary molars prepared in vivo. Am J Dent 2008;21:393-397.
  22. Peters OA, Laib A, Rüegsegger P, Barbakow F. Threedimensional analysis of root canal geometry by highresolution computed tomography. J Dent Res 2000;79:1405-1409. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345000790060901
  23. Hotta M, Aono M. Adaptation to the cavity floor of the light-cured glass ionomer cement base under a composite restoration. J Oral Rehabil 1994;21:679-685.
  24. Oliveira LC, Duarte S Jr, Araujo CA, Abrahao A. Effect of low-elastic modulus liner and base as stress-absorbing layer in composite resin restorations. Dent Mater 2010; 26:e159-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.076
  25. Nomoto R, Komoriyama M, McCabe JF, Hirano S. Effect of mixing method on the porosity of encapsulated glass ionomer cement. Dent Mater 2004;20:972-978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2004.03.001
  26. Retief DH, Mandras RS, Russell CM. Shear bond strength required to prevent microleakage of the dentin/restoration interface. Am J Dent 1994;7:44-46.
  27. Erickson RL, Glasspoole EA. Bonding to tooth structure: a comparison of glass-ionomer and composite-resin systems. J Esthet Dent 1994;6:227-244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.1994.tb00864.x
  28. Nery S, McCabe JF, Wassell RW. A comparative study of three dental adhesives. J Dent 1995;23:55-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(95)90661-Z
  29. Tjan AH, Castelnuovo J, Liu P. Bond strength of multistep and simplified-step systems. Am J Dent 1996;9:269-272.
  30. Triolo PT Jr, Swift EJ Jr, Barkmeier WW. Shear bond strengths of composite to dentin using six dental adhesive systems. Oper Dent 1995;20:46-50.
  31. van der Vyver PJ, de Wet FA. Shear bond strength of four dentine bonding systems to dry and moist dentine. J Dent Assoc S Afr 1997;52:555-558.
  32. Eliades G, Palaghias G. In vitro characterization of visible light-cured glass ionomer liners. Dent Mater 1993;9:198-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(93)90120-F
  33. Cattani-Lorente MA, Dupuis V, Moya F, Payan J, Meyer JM. Comparative study of the physical properties of a polyacid-modified composite resin and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Dent Mater 1999;15:21-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(99)00010-X
  34. Tam LE, McComb D, Pulver F. Physical properties of proprietary light-cured lining materials. Oper Dent 1991;16:210-217.
  35. Tam LE, Pulver E, McComb D, Smith DC. Physical properties of calcium hydroxide and glass-ionomer base and lining materials. Dent Mater 1989;5:145-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(89)90001-8
  36. Young AM. FTIR investigation of polymerisation and polyacid neutralisation kinetics in resin-modified glassionomer dental cements. Biomaterials 2002;23:3289- 3295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00092-3
  37. Feilzer AJ, Kakaboura AI, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL. The influence of water sorption on the development of setting shrinkage stress in traditional and resinmodified glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater 1995;11:186-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(95)80016-6
  38. Mason PN, Ferrari M. In vivo evaluation of glass-ionomer cement adhesion to dentin. Quintessence Int 1994;25: 499-504.
  39. Akpata ES, Sadiq W. Post-operative sensitivity in glass-ionomer versus adhesive resin-lined posterior composites. Am J Dent 2001;14:34-38.
  40. Burrow MF, Banomyong D, Harnirattisai C, Messer HH. Effect of glass-ionomer cement lining on postoperative sensitivity in occlusal cavities restored with resin composite-a randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent 2009;34:648-655. https://doi.org/10.2341/08-098-C
  41. Unemori M, Matsuya Y, Akashi A, Goto Y, Akamine A. Composite resin restoration and postoperative sensitivity: clinical follow-up in an undergraduate program. J Dent 2001;29:7-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(00)00037-3
  42. Heintze SD. Systematic reviews: I. The correlation between laboratory tests on marginal quality and bond strength. II. The correlation between marginal quality and clinical outcome. J Adhes Dent 2007;9(Supplement 1):77-106.
  43. Heintze S, Forjanic M, Cavalleri A. Microleakage of Class II restorations with different tracers-comparison with SEM quantitative analysis. J Adhes Dent 2008;10:259-267.
  44. Chen X, Cuijpers V, Fan M, Frencken JE. Optimal use of silver nitrate and marginal leakage at the sealantenamel interface using micro-CT. Am J Dent 2009;22:269-272.

Cited by

  1. Polymerization shrinkage assessment of dental resin composites: a literature review vol.104, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-016-0264-3
  2. Micro-CT evaluation of internal adaptation in resin fillings with different dentin adhesives vol.39, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2014.39.1.24
  3. Comparison of Internal Adaptation of Bulk-fill and Increment-fill Resin Composite Materials vol.44, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.2341/17-269-L
  4. Gaps at the interface between dentine and self‐adhesive resin cement in post‐endodontic restorations quantified in 3D by phase contrast‐enhanced micro‐CT vol.53, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13232
  5. Micro-computed tomography in preventive and restorative dental research: A review vol.51, pp.None, 2012, https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.20210087