Comparing the shear bond strength of direct and indirect composite inlays in relation to different surface conditioning and curing techniques

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of this study was to test the null hypothesis that different surface conditioning (etch and rinse and self-etch) and curing techniques (light cure/dual cure) had no effect on the shear bond strength of direct and indirect composite inlays. Materials and Methods: A total of 112 extracted human molar teeth were horizontally sectioned and randomly divided into two groups according to restoration technique (direct and indirect restorations). Each group was further subdivided into seven subgroups (n = 8) according to bonding agent (etch and rinse adhesives Scotchbond multi-purpose plus, All-Bond 3, Adper Single Bond and Prime Bond NT; and self-etch adhesives Clearfil Liner Bond, Futurabond DC and G bond). Indirect composites were cemented to dentin surfaces using dual-curing luting cement. Shear bond strength of specimens was tested using a Universal Testing Machine. Two samples from each subgroup were evaluated under Scanning electron microscopy to see the failing modes. Data was analyzed using independent sample t-tests and Tukey′s tests. Results: Surface conditioning and curing of bonding agents were all found to have significant effects on shear bond strength (P < 0.05) of both direct and indirect composite inlays. With direct restoration, etch and rinse systems and dual-cured bonding agents yielded higher bond strengths than indirect restoration, self-etch systems and light-cured bonding agents. Conclusions: The results of the present study indicated that direct restoration to be a more reliable method than indirect restoration. Although etch and rinse bonding systems showed higher shear bond strength to dentin than self-etch systems, both systems can be safely used for the adhesion of direct as well as indirect restorations.

Key words:

Adhesive - bonding agent - dentin - shear bond strength

• REFERENCES

• 1 de Andrade OS, de Goes MF, Montes MA. Marginal adaptation and microtensile bond strength of composite indirect restorations bonded to dentin treated with adhesive and low-viscosity composite. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 279-87
• 2 Labella R, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G. Polymerization shrinkage and elasticity of flowable composites and filled adhesives. Dent Mater 1999; 15: 128-37
• 3 Dietschi D, De Siebenthal G, Neveu-Rosenstand L, Holz J. Influence of the restorative technique and new adhesives on the dentin marginal seal and adaptation of resin composite Class II restorations: An in vitro evaluation. Quintessence Int 1995; 26: 717-27
• 4 Browne RM, Tobias RS. Microbial microleakage and pulpal inflammation: A review. Endod Dent Traumatol 1986; 2: 177-83
• 5 Leinfelder KF. New developments in resin restorative systems. J Am Dent Assoc 1997; 128: 573-81
• 6 Soares CJ, Giannini M, Oliveira MT, Paulillo LA, Martins LR. Effect of surface treatments of laboratory-fabricated composites on the microtensile bond strength to a luting resin cement. J Appl Oral Sci 2004; 12: 45-50
• 7 Touati B. The evolution of aesthetic restorative materials for inlays and onlays: A review. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1996; 8: 657-66
• 8 Sarabi N, Ghavamnasiri M, Forooghbakhsh A. The influence of adhesive luting systems on bond strength and failure mode of an indirect micro ceramic resin-based composite veneer. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009; 10: 33-40
• 9 D′Arcangelo C, Vanini L. Effect of three surface treatments on the adhesive properties of indirect composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 2007; 9: 319-26
• 10 Swift Jr EJ, Brodeur C, Cvitko E, Pires JA. Treatment of composite surfaces for indirect bonding. Dent Mater 1992; 8: 193-6
• 11 Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P. et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: Current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003; 28: 215-35
• 12 Koibuchi H, Yasuda N, Nakabayashi N. Bonding to dentin with a self-etching primer: The effect of smear layers. Dent Mater 2001; 17: 122-6
• 13 Watanabe I, Nakabayashi N, Pashley DH. Bonding to ground dentin by a phenyl-P self-etching primer. J Dent Res 1994; 73: 1212-20
• 14 Shortall AC, Baylis RL, Baylis MA, Grundy JR. Marginal seal comparisons between resin-bonded Class II porcelain inlays, posterior composite restorations and direct composite resin inlays. Int J Prosthodont 1989; 2: 217-23
• 15 Wakiaga J, Brunton P, Silikas N, Glenny AM. Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; 1: CD004347
• 16 Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955; 34: 849-53
• 17 Touati B, Aidan N. Second generation laboratory composite resins for indirect restorations. J Esthet Dent 1997; 9: 108-18
• 18 Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E. A comparison of accuracy in seating and gap formation for three inlay/onlay techniques. Oper Dent 1990; 15: 129-35
• 19 Fuhrer N. Restoring posterior teeth with a novel indirect composite resin system. J Esthet Dent 1997; 9: 124-30
• 20 Douglas WH, Fields RP, Fundingsland J. A comparison between the microleakage of direct and indirect composite restorative systems. J Dent 1989; 17: 184-8
• 21 Hasanreĭsoðlu U, Sönmez H, Uçtaþli S, Wilson HJ. Microleakage of direct and indirect inlay/onlay systems. J Oral Rehabil 1996; 23: 66-71
• 22 Goracci C, Sadek FT, Fabianelli A, Tay FR, Ferrari M. Evaluation of the adhesion of fiber posts to intraradicular dentin. Oper Dent 2005; 30: 627-35
• 23 Ritter AV, Heymann HO, Swift Jr EJ, Sturdevant JR, Wilder Jr AD. Clinical evaluation of an all-in-one adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions with different degrees of dentin sclerosis. Oper Dent 2008; 33: 370-8
• 24 Yazici AR, Celik C, Ozgünaltay G, Dayangaç B. Bond strength of different adhesive systems to dental hard tissues. Oper Dent 2007; 32: 166-72
• 25 Ishii T, Ohara N, Oshima A, Koizumi H, Nakazawa M, Masuno T. et al. Bond strength to bovine dentin of a composite core build-up material combined with four different bonding agents. J Oral Sci 2008; 50: 329-33
• 26 Latta MA, Kelsey 3 rd WP, Kelsey 5 th WP. Effect of polymerization mode of adhesive and cement on shear bond strength to dentin. Am J Dent 2006; 19: 96-100
• 27 Lee JI, Park SH. The effect of three variables on shear bond strength when luting a resin inlay to dentin. Oper Dent 2009; 34: 288-92
• 28 Gresnigt MM, Ozcan M. Fracture strength of direct versus indirect laminates with and without fiber application at the cementation interface. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 927-33