Cuspal movement related to different bonding techniques using etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To investigate the effects of adhesion technique using different contemporary adhesive systems on the cuspal movement in class II composite restorations in human premolar teeth.

Methods: Human premolar teeth were prepared with class II cavities and then restored with composite and etch-and-rinse (Adper Scotchbond Multi Purpose and Adper Single Bond) or selfetch (Clearfil SE Bond and Clearfil S3 Bond) adhesive systems under different bonding techniques (total bonding and selective bonding). The influence of an intermediate layer of flowable composite was also evaluated. The cuspal distance was measured before and after the restorative procedure, and the difference was recorded as cuspal movement. The data were submitted to ANOVA test and Tukey’s post hoc comparison procedure test (alpha=0.05).

Results: For all adhesive systems, the teeth restored with selective bonding technique showed lower values of cuspal movement and the use of an intermediary layer of flowable composite did not show any influence on the cuspal movement.

Conclusions: Both the adhesive techniques tested were not able to prevent the cuspal movement. However, selectively bonded class II composite restorations demonstrated lower values of cuspal movement comparing with total bonding technique, and the use of an intermediate layer of flowable composite did not diminish the values of cuspal movement. (Eur J Dent 2009;3:213-218)

Key words:

Etch-and-rinse adhesive - Self-etch adhesive - Bonding technique - Cuspal movement

• REFERENCES

• 1 Gonzalez Lopez S, Sanz Chinesta MV, Ceballos Garcia L, de Haro Gasquet F, Gonzalez Rodriguez MP. Influence of cavity type and size of composite restorations on cuspal flexure. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2006;11:E536-540.
• 2 Krejci I, Duc O, Dietschi D, de Campos E. Marginal adaptation, retention and fracture resistance of adhesive composite restorations on devital teeth with and without posts. Oper Dent 2003;28:127-135.
• 3 Gonzalez-Lopez S, Lucena-Martin C, de Haro-Gasquet F, Vilchez-Diaz MA, de Haro-Munoz C. Influence of different composite restoration techniques on cuspal deflection: an in vitro study. Oper Dent 2004;29:656-660.
• 4 Fleming GJ, Hall DP, Shortall AC, Burke FJ. Cuspal movement and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with posterior filling materials of varying reported volumetric shrinkage values. J Dent 2005;33:139-146.
• 5 Lutz F, Krejci I, Barbakow F. Quality and durability of marginal adaptation in bonded composite restorations. Dent Mater 1991;7:107-113.
• 6 Krejci I, Stavridakis M. New perspectives on dentin adhesion--differing methods of bonding. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 2000;12:727-732; quiz 734.
• 7 Goehring TN, Peters OA, Lutz F. Marginal adaptation of inlay-retained adhesive fixed partial dentures after mechanical and thermal stress: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:81-92.
• 8 Campos EA, Correr GM, Leonardi DP, Barato-Filho F, Gonzaga CC, Zielak JC. Chlorhexidine diminishes the loss of bond strength over time under simulated pulpal pressure and thermo-mechanical stressing. J Dent 2009;37:108-114.
• 9 Versluis A, Douglas WH, Cross M, Sakaguchi RL. Does an incremental filling technique reduce polymerization shrinkage stresses? J Dent Res 1996;75:871-878.
• 10 Meredith N, Setchell DJ. In vitro measurement of cuspal strain and displacement in composite restored teeth. J Dent 1997;25:331-337.
• 11 Opdam NJ, Roeters JJ, Kuijs R, Burgersdijk RC. Necessity of bevels for box only Class II composite restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:274-279.
• 12 Alomari QD, Reinhardt JW, Boyer DB. Effect of liners on cusp deflection and gap formation in composite restorations. Oper Dent 2001;26:406-411.
• 13 Senawongse P, Sattabanasuk V, Shimada Y, Otsuki M, Tagami J. Bond strengths of current adhesive systems on intact and ground enamel. J Esthet Restor Dent 2004;16:107- 115; discussion 116.
• 14 Sengun A, Orucoglu H, Ipekdal I, Ozer F. Adhesion of two bonding systems to air-abraded or bur-abraded human enamel surfaces. Eur J Dent 2008;2:167-175.
• 15 Reis A, Moura K, Pellizzaro A, Dal-Bianco K, de Andrade AM, Loguercio AD. Durability of enamel bonding using onestep self-etch systems on ground and unground enamel. Oper Dent 2009;34:181-191.
• 16 Krejci I, Schupbach P, Balmelli F, Lutz F. The ultrastructure of a compomer adhesive interface in enamel and dentin, and its marginal adaptation under dentinal fluid as compared to that of a composite. Dent Mater 1999;15:349-358.
• 17 Causton BE, Miller B, Sefton J. The deformation of cusps by bonded posterior composite restorations: an in vitro study. Br Dent J 1985;159:397-400.
• 18 Tantbirojn D, Versluis A, Pintado MR, DeLong R, Douglas WH. Tooth deformation patterns in molars after composite restoration. Dent Mater 2004;20:535-542.
• 19 Segura A, Donly KJ. In vitro posterior composite polymerization recovery following hygroscopic expansion. J Oral Rehabil 1993;20:495-499.
• 20 Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift EJ, Jr., Stamatiades P, Wilkerson M. A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc 1998;129:567-577.
• 21 Olmez A, Oztas N, Bodur H. The effect of flowable resin composite on microleakage and internal voids in class II composite restorations. Oper Dent 2004;29:713-719.
• 22 Van Meerbeek B, Willems G, Celis JP, Roos JR, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Assessment by nanoindentation of the hardness and elasticity of the resindentin bonding area. J Dent Res 1993;72:1434-1442.