Cervical Interfacial Bonding Effectiveness of Class II Bulk Versus Incremental Fill Resin Composite Restorations

Cervical interfacial bonding quality has been a matter of deep concern. The purpose of this study was to analyze microtensile bond strength (MTBS) and cervical interfacial gap distance (IGD) of bulk-fill vs incremental-fill Class II composite restorations. Box-only Class II cavities were prepared in...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Operative dentistry 2015-11, Vol.40 (6), p.622-635
Hauptverfasser: Al-Harbi, F, Kaisarly, D, Michna, A, ArRejaie, A, Bader, D, El Gezawi, M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 635
container_issue 6
container_start_page 622
container_title Operative dentistry
container_volume 40
creator Al-Harbi, F
Kaisarly, D
Michna, A
ArRejaie, A
Bader, D
El Gezawi, M
description Cervical interfacial bonding quality has been a matter of deep concern. The purpose of this study was to analyze microtensile bond strength (MTBS) and cervical interfacial gap distance (IGD) of bulk-fill vs incremental-fill Class II composite restorations. Box-only Class II cavities were prepared in 91 maxillary premolars (n = 7) with gingival margin placement 1 mm above the cementoenamel junction at one side and 1 mm below it on the other side. Eighty-four maxillary premolars were divided into self-etch and total-etch groups and further subdivided into six restorative material subgroups used incrementally and with an open-sandwich technique: group 1, Tetric Ceram HB (TC) as a control; group 2, Tetric EvoFlow (EF); group 3, SDR Smart Dentin Replacement (SDR); group 4, SonicFill (SF); group 5, Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill (TN); and group 6, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TE). Groups 2-6 were bulk-fill restoratives. Tetric N-Bond Self-Etch (se) and Tetric N-Bond total-etch (te) adhesive were used in subgroups 1-5, whereas AdheSE (se) and ExciTE F (te) were used in subgroup 6. In an additional group, Filtek P90 Low Shrink Restorative (P90) was used only with its corresponding self-etch bond. The materials were manipulated, light-cured (1600 mW/cm(2)), artificially aged (thermal and occlusal load-cycling), and sectioned. Two microrods/restoration (n = 14/group) were tested for MTBS at a crosshead-speed of 0.5 mm/min (Instron testing machine). Fracture loads were recorded (Newtons), and MTSBs were calculated (Megapascals). Means were statistically analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test, Conover-Inman post hoc analysis for MTBS (multiple comparisons), and Mann-Whitney U test for IGD. The ends of the fractures were examined for failure mode. One microrod/restoration (n = 7/group) was investigated by scanning electron microscopy (×1200) for IGD. MTBS values for SF/te, P90 in enamel, and TC+SDR/te in enamel and cementum were significantly higher compared with those for the control TC/te and TC/se in cementum. Most of the failures were mixed. IGDs were generally smaller at enamel margins, and the smallest IGDs were found in P90 at both enamel and cementum margins. Bulk-fill and silorane-based composites might provide better cervical interfacial quality than incremental-fill restorations.
doi_str_mv 10.2341/14-152-l
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1737479613</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1737479613</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-2150f99797a99990bec6ebddfb1a6677d2c6aa2d76da69ab53337768124a43703</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkE9Lw0AQxRdRbK2Cn0By9BLN_m-ONrQaKAiiXsNmM5HVzW7cTQp-e1OsOpd5D37zGB5Clzi7IZThW8xSzElqj9Acc56nZCnoMZpnVOBUSspm6CzG9yxjnHF-imZEYI4Zz-eoLyDsjFY2Kd0AoVXaTHrlXWPcW7JuW9CD2YGDGBPfJoVVkyjLZDXaj-QVQhwn63SADtwwXW6MtckTROOSwne9j2aAvR98UIPxLp6jk1bZCBeHvUAvm_Vz8ZBuH-_L4m6bakbIkBLMszbPZS5VPk1WgxZQN01bYyWElA3RQinSSNEokauaU0qlFEtMmGJUZnSBrn9y--A_x-mBqjNRg7XKgR9jhSWVTOYC039UBx9jgLbqg-lU-KpwVu37rTCrpn6r7YReHVLHuoPmD_wtlH4Df-t1dQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1737479613</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cervical Interfacial Bonding Effectiveness of Class II Bulk Versus Incremental Fill Resin Composite Restorations</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Allen Press Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Al-Harbi, F ; Kaisarly, D ; Michna, A ; ArRejaie, A ; Bader, D ; El Gezawi, M</creator><creatorcontrib>Al-Harbi, F ; Kaisarly, D ; Michna, A ; ArRejaie, A ; Bader, D ; El Gezawi, M</creatorcontrib><description>Cervical interfacial bonding quality has been a matter of deep concern. The purpose of this study was to analyze microtensile bond strength (MTBS) and cervical interfacial gap distance (IGD) of bulk-fill vs incremental-fill Class II composite restorations. Box-only Class II cavities were prepared in 91 maxillary premolars (n = 7) with gingival margin placement 1 mm above the cementoenamel junction at one side and 1 mm below it on the other side. Eighty-four maxillary premolars were divided into self-etch and total-etch groups and further subdivided into six restorative material subgroups used incrementally and with an open-sandwich technique: group 1, Tetric Ceram HB (TC) as a control; group 2, Tetric EvoFlow (EF); group 3, SDR Smart Dentin Replacement (SDR); group 4, SonicFill (SF); group 5, Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill (TN); and group 6, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TE). Groups 2-6 were bulk-fill restoratives. Tetric N-Bond Self-Etch (se) and Tetric N-Bond total-etch (te) adhesive were used in subgroups 1-5, whereas AdheSE (se) and ExciTE F (te) were used in subgroup 6. In an additional group, Filtek P90 Low Shrink Restorative (P90) was used only with its corresponding self-etch bond. The materials were manipulated, light-cured (1600 mW/cm(2)), artificially aged (thermal and occlusal load-cycling), and sectioned. Two microrods/restoration (n = 14/group) were tested for MTBS at a crosshead-speed of 0.5 mm/min (Instron testing machine). Fracture loads were recorded (Newtons), and MTSBs were calculated (Megapascals). Means were statistically analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test, Conover-Inman post hoc analysis for MTBS (multiple comparisons), and Mann-Whitney U test for IGD. The ends of the fractures were examined for failure mode. One microrod/restoration (n = 7/group) was investigated by scanning electron microscopy (×1200) for IGD. MTBS values for SF/te, P90 in enamel, and TC+SDR/te in enamel and cementum were significantly higher compared with those for the control TC/te and TC/se in cementum. Most of the failures were mixed. IGDs were generally smaller at enamel margins, and the smallest IGDs were found in P90 at both enamel and cementum margins. Bulk-fill and silorane-based composites might provide better cervical interfacial quality than incremental-fill restorations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0361-7734</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1559-2863</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2341/14-152-l</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26151459</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Composite Resins - chemistry ; Dental Restoration, Permanent - methods ; Dental Stress Analysis ; Dentin-Bonding Agents - chemistry ; Dentistry ; Humans ; Materials Testing ; Resin Cements - chemistry ; Root Caries - therapy ; Tensile Strength ; Tooth Cervix</subject><ispartof>Operative dentistry, 2015-11, Vol.40 (6), p.622-635</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-2150f99797a99990bec6ebddfb1a6677d2c6aa2d76da69ab53337768124a43703</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-2150f99797a99990bec6ebddfb1a6677d2c6aa2d76da69ab53337768124a43703</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151459$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Al-Harbi, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaisarly, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michna, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ArRejaie, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bader, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>El Gezawi, M</creatorcontrib><title>Cervical Interfacial Bonding Effectiveness of Class II Bulk Versus Incremental Fill Resin Composite Restorations</title><title>Operative dentistry</title><addtitle>Oper Dent</addtitle><description>Cervical interfacial bonding quality has been a matter of deep concern. The purpose of this study was to analyze microtensile bond strength (MTBS) and cervical interfacial gap distance (IGD) of bulk-fill vs incremental-fill Class II composite restorations. Box-only Class II cavities were prepared in 91 maxillary premolars (n = 7) with gingival margin placement 1 mm above the cementoenamel junction at one side and 1 mm below it on the other side. Eighty-four maxillary premolars were divided into self-etch and total-etch groups and further subdivided into six restorative material subgroups used incrementally and with an open-sandwich technique: group 1, Tetric Ceram HB (TC) as a control; group 2, Tetric EvoFlow (EF); group 3, SDR Smart Dentin Replacement (SDR); group 4, SonicFill (SF); group 5, Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill (TN); and group 6, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TE). Groups 2-6 were bulk-fill restoratives. Tetric N-Bond Self-Etch (se) and Tetric N-Bond total-etch (te) adhesive were used in subgroups 1-5, whereas AdheSE (se) and ExciTE F (te) were used in subgroup 6. In an additional group, Filtek P90 Low Shrink Restorative (P90) was used only with its corresponding self-etch bond. The materials were manipulated, light-cured (1600 mW/cm(2)), artificially aged (thermal and occlusal load-cycling), and sectioned. Two microrods/restoration (n = 14/group) were tested for MTBS at a crosshead-speed of 0.5 mm/min (Instron testing machine). Fracture loads were recorded (Newtons), and MTSBs were calculated (Megapascals). Means were statistically analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test, Conover-Inman post hoc analysis for MTBS (multiple comparisons), and Mann-Whitney U test for IGD. The ends of the fractures were examined for failure mode. One microrod/restoration (n = 7/group) was investigated by scanning electron microscopy (×1200) for IGD. MTBS values for SF/te, P90 in enamel, and TC+SDR/te in enamel and cementum were significantly higher compared with those for the control TC/te and TC/se in cementum. Most of the failures were mixed. IGDs were generally smaller at enamel margins, and the smallest IGDs were found in P90 at both enamel and cementum margins. Bulk-fill and silorane-based composites might provide better cervical interfacial quality than incremental-fill restorations.</description><subject>Composite Resins - chemistry</subject><subject>Dental Restoration, Permanent - methods</subject><subject>Dental Stress Analysis</subject><subject>Dentin-Bonding Agents - chemistry</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Materials Testing</subject><subject>Resin Cements - chemistry</subject><subject>Root Caries - therapy</subject><subject>Tensile Strength</subject><subject>Tooth Cervix</subject><issn>0361-7734</issn><issn>1559-2863</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkE9Lw0AQxRdRbK2Cn0By9BLN_m-ONrQaKAiiXsNmM5HVzW7cTQp-e1OsOpd5D37zGB5Clzi7IZThW8xSzElqj9Acc56nZCnoMZpnVOBUSspm6CzG9yxjnHF-imZEYI4Zz-eoLyDsjFY2Kd0AoVXaTHrlXWPcW7JuW9CD2YGDGBPfJoVVkyjLZDXaj-QVQhwn63SADtwwXW6MtckTROOSwne9j2aAvR98UIPxLp6jk1bZCBeHvUAvm_Vz8ZBuH-_L4m6bakbIkBLMszbPZS5VPk1WgxZQN01bYyWElA3RQinSSNEokauaU0qlFEtMmGJUZnSBrn9y--A_x-mBqjNRg7XKgR9jhSWVTOYC039UBx9jgLbqg-lU-KpwVu37rTCrpn6r7YReHVLHuoPmD_wtlH4Df-t1dQ</recordid><startdate>201511</startdate><enddate>201511</enddate><creator>Al-Harbi, F</creator><creator>Kaisarly, D</creator><creator>Michna, A</creator><creator>ArRejaie, A</creator><creator>Bader, D</creator><creator>El Gezawi, M</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201511</creationdate><title>Cervical Interfacial Bonding Effectiveness of Class II Bulk Versus Incremental Fill Resin Composite Restorations</title><author>Al-Harbi, F ; Kaisarly, D ; Michna, A ; ArRejaie, A ; Bader, D ; El Gezawi, M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-2150f99797a99990bec6ebddfb1a6677d2c6aa2d76da69ab53337768124a43703</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Composite Resins - chemistry</topic><topic>Dental Restoration, Permanent - methods</topic><topic>Dental Stress Analysis</topic><topic>Dentin-Bonding Agents - chemistry</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Materials Testing</topic><topic>Resin Cements - chemistry</topic><topic>Root Caries - therapy</topic><topic>Tensile Strength</topic><topic>Tooth Cervix</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Al-Harbi, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaisarly, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michna, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ArRejaie, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bader, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>El Gezawi, M</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Operative dentistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Al-Harbi, F</au><au>Kaisarly, D</au><au>Michna, A</au><au>ArRejaie, A</au><au>Bader, D</au><au>El Gezawi, M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cervical Interfacial Bonding Effectiveness of Class II Bulk Versus Incremental Fill Resin Composite Restorations</atitle><jtitle>Operative dentistry</jtitle><addtitle>Oper Dent</addtitle><date>2015-11</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>622</spage><epage>635</epage><pages>622-635</pages><issn>0361-7734</issn><eissn>1559-2863</eissn><abstract>Cervical interfacial bonding quality has been a matter of deep concern. The purpose of this study was to analyze microtensile bond strength (MTBS) and cervical interfacial gap distance (IGD) of bulk-fill vs incremental-fill Class II composite restorations. Box-only Class II cavities were prepared in 91 maxillary premolars (n = 7) with gingival margin placement 1 mm above the cementoenamel junction at one side and 1 mm below it on the other side. Eighty-four maxillary premolars were divided into self-etch and total-etch groups and further subdivided into six restorative material subgroups used incrementally and with an open-sandwich technique: group 1, Tetric Ceram HB (TC) as a control; group 2, Tetric EvoFlow (EF); group 3, SDR Smart Dentin Replacement (SDR); group 4, SonicFill (SF); group 5, Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill (TN); and group 6, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TE). Groups 2-6 were bulk-fill restoratives. Tetric N-Bond Self-Etch (se) and Tetric N-Bond total-etch (te) adhesive were used in subgroups 1-5, whereas AdheSE (se) and ExciTE F (te) were used in subgroup 6. In an additional group, Filtek P90 Low Shrink Restorative (P90) was used only with its corresponding self-etch bond. The materials were manipulated, light-cured (1600 mW/cm(2)), artificially aged (thermal and occlusal load-cycling), and sectioned. Two microrods/restoration (n = 14/group) were tested for MTBS at a crosshead-speed of 0.5 mm/min (Instron testing machine). Fracture loads were recorded (Newtons), and MTSBs were calculated (Megapascals). Means were statistically analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test, Conover-Inman post hoc analysis for MTBS (multiple comparisons), and Mann-Whitney U test for IGD. The ends of the fractures were examined for failure mode. One microrod/restoration (n = 7/group) was investigated by scanning electron microscopy (×1200) for IGD. MTBS values for SF/te, P90 in enamel, and TC+SDR/te in enamel and cementum were significantly higher compared with those for the control TC/te and TC/se in cementum. Most of the failures were mixed. IGDs were generally smaller at enamel margins, and the smallest IGDs were found in P90 at both enamel and cementum margins. Bulk-fill and silorane-based composites might provide better cervical interfacial quality than incremental-fill restorations.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>26151459</pmid><doi>10.2341/14-152-l</doi><tpages>14</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0361-7734
ispartof Operative dentistry, 2015-11, Vol.40 (6), p.622-635
issn 0361-7734
1559-2863
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1737479613
source MEDLINE; Allen Press Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Composite Resins - chemistry
Dental Restoration, Permanent - methods
Dental Stress Analysis
Dentin-Bonding Agents - chemistry
Dentistry
Humans
Materials Testing
Resin Cements - chemistry
Root Caries - therapy
Tensile Strength
Tooth Cervix
title Cervical Interfacial Bonding Effectiveness of Class II Bulk Versus Incremental Fill Resin Composite Restorations
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T04%3A43%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cervical%20Interfacial%20Bonding%20Effectiveness%20of%20Class%20II%20Bulk%20Versus%20Incremental%20Fill%20Resin%20Composite%20Restorations&rft.jtitle=Operative%20dentistry&rft.au=Al-Harbi,%20F&rft.date=2015-11&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=622&rft.epage=635&rft.pages=622-635&rft.issn=0361-7734&rft.eissn=1559-2863&rft_id=info:doi/10.2341/14-152-l&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1737479613%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1737479613&rft_id=info:pmid/26151459&rfr_iscdi=true