Supragingival relocation of subgingivally located margins for adhesive inlays/onlays with different materials.

PURPOSE This study evaluated the marginal adaptation of supragingivally relocated cervical margins. Newly developed and reference materials were compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eighty-eight extracted human teeth were divided into 11 groups. A standardized boxshaped cavity (4.0 mm mesiodistal width, 1.5 mm axial depth) was prepared on each tooth with the cervical margin 1.3 mm below the cementoenamel junction. Seven different restorative materials (Filtek Silorane [Sil], Clearfil AP-X [APX], Clearfil Majesty Posterior [CMP], Clearfil Majesty Flow [CMFlow], RelyX Unicem [RelyX], SDR [SDR], Vertise Flow [VertFlow]) were applied in a layer of 1.5 mm, combined with different adhesive systems (Filtek Silorane Primer + Bond [SilPB], Clearfil Profect Bond [ClePB], Filtek Silorane Bond [SilB]). No indirect restorations (ie, inlays/onlays) were placed on these restorations. SEM analysis was performed to evaluate marginal adaptation in enamel and dentin. The results were subjected to statistical analysis by Kruskal Wallis and Duncan post-hoc tests. RESULTS In both dentin and enamel, statistically significant differences were present between groups (p < 0.001). In enamel, the lowest percentage of continuous margin was observed for SilPB/CMP, SilPB/APX, and ClePB/SDR, while SilPB/Sil exhibited the highest percentage of continuous margin, although this was not statistically different from other groups except for SilPB/CMP, SilPB/APX, and ClePB/SDR. In dentin, a higher percentage of continuous margin was observed for all materials than in enamel (p < 0.002). Statistically significant differences were found between ClePB/SilB/Sil, ClePB/SDR, and RelyX, SilPB/APX, ClePB/APX, and ClePB/Sil. ClePB/Sil showed the lowest marginal adaptation. Considering the overall marginal length, the best marginal adaptation was exhibited by ClePB/SilB/Sil, followed by SilPB/Sil, ClePB/SDR, and ClePB/CMP. CONCLUSION Marginal adaptation of supragingivally relocated cervical margins is significantly influenced by the materials used.

[1]  P. Lambrechts,et al.  A Critical Review of the Durability of Adhesion to Tooth Tissue: Methods and Results , 2005, Journal of dental research.

[2]  K. Vandewalle,et al.  Physical properties of a new silorane-based restorative system. , 2010, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[3]  Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. , 2005 .

[4]  P. Vallittu,et al.  Incremental layers bonding of silorane composite: the initial bonding properties. , 2008, Journal of dentistry.

[5]  P. Lambrechts,et al.  Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to dentin. , 2001, The journal of adhesive dentistry.

[6]  P. Lambrechts,et al.  Does a low-shrinking composite induce less stress at the adhesive interface? , 2010, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[7]  E. Swift,et al.  Effects of temperature on composite resin shrinkage. , 2009, Quintessence international.

[8]  R. Hickel,et al.  Macro-, micro- and nano-mechanical investigations on silorane and methacrylate-based composites. , 2009, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[9]  J. Ferracane,et al.  How should composite be layered to reduce shrinkage stress: incremental or bulk filling? , 2008, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[10]  A. Manso,et al.  A randomized clinical evaluation of a one- and two-step self-etch adhesive over 24 months. , 2010, Operative dentistry.

[11]  J. Wataha,et al.  Dynamics of composite polymerization mediates the development of cuspal strain. , 2006, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[12]  D. El-Korashy,et al.  Post-gel shrinkage strain and degree of conversion of preheated resin composite cured using different regimens. , 2010, Operative dentistry.

[13]  C. Davidson,et al.  Setting Stress in Composite Resin in Relation to Configuration of the Restoration , 1987, Journal of dental research.

[14]  A. Mine,et al.  TEM characterization of a silorane composite bonded to enamel/dentin. , 2010, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[15]  P. Lambrechts,et al.  Bonding effectiveness of adhesive luting agents to enamel and dentin. , 2007, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[16]  W. Weinmann,et al.  Siloranes in dental composites. , 2005, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[17]  I. Krejci,et al.  In vitro evaluation of marginal and internal adaptation after occlusal stressing of indirect class II composite restorations with different resinous bases and interface treatments. “Post-fatigue adaptation of indirect composite restorations” , 2003, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[18]  D. Watts,et al.  Colour-stability and gloss-retention of silorane and dimethacrylate composites with accelerated aging. , 2008, Journal of dentistry.

[19]  Jack L Ferracane,et al.  Buonocore Lecture. Placing dental composites--a stressful experience. , 2008, Operative dentistry.

[20]  I. Krejci,et al.  Bonded indirect restorations for posterior teeth: from cavity preparation to provisionalization. , 2007, Quintessence international.

[21]  İ. Baltacıoğlu,et al.  Comparing microleakage and the layering methods of silorane-based resin composite in wide Class II MOD cavities. , 2009, Operative dentistry.

[22]  Zoran R. Vulicevic,et al.  Self-adhesive resin cements: a literature review. , 2008, The journal of adhesive dentistry.

[23]  E. Saino,et al.  Adhesion of Streptococcus Mutans to Different Restorative Materials , 2009, The International journal of artificial organs.

[24]  S. Duarte,et al.  Nanoleakage, ultramorphological characteristics, and microtensile bond strengths of a new low-shrinkage composite to dentin after artificial aging. , 2009, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[25]  W. Geurtsen,et al.  Shear bond strength of self-adhesive resins compared to resin cements with etch and rinse adhesives to enamel and dentin in vitro , 2010, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[26]  P. Lambrechts,et al.  Microtensile bond strengths of one- and two-step self-etch adhesives to bur-cut enamel and dentin. , 2003, American journal of dentistry.

[27]  P. Marquis,et al.  The influence of short and medium-term water immersion on the hydrolytic stability of novel low-shrink dental composites. , 2005, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[28]  I. Krejci,et al.  Bonded indirect restorations for posterior teeth: the luting appointment. , 2007, Quintessence international.

[29]  V. Miletic,et al.  Comparison of the hybrid layer formed by Silorane adhesive, one-step self-etch and etch and rinse systems using confocal micro-Raman spectroscopy and SEM. , 2008, Journal of dentistry.

[30]  R. Spreafico,et al.  Current clinical concepts for adhesive cementation of tooth-colored posterior restorations. , 1998, Practical periodontics and aesthetic dentistry : PPAD.

[31]  J Vreven,et al.  Investigating filler morphology and mechanical properties of new low-shrinkage resin composite types. , 2010, Journal of oral rehabilitation.