OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that the effects of filling technique, cavity configuration and use of a low-viscosity composite liner influence resin bond strength to the dentin of class II cavities gingival floor; and analyze the failure modes of fractured specimens. METHODS:Standardized class II cavities were prepared in the proximal surfaces of freshly extracted third molars, which were randomly assigned to 10 experimental groups. All prepared surfaces were acid-etched, bonded with Single Bond adhesive system and restored with TPH composite, according to each technique: G1 and G2-horizontallayering, G3 and G4-faciolingual layering, G5 and G6-obliquelayering, G7 and G8-bulk filling, G9 and G10-control (flat dentin surfaces). Groups were tested, with or without a low-viscosity composite liner (Tetric Flow Chroma). After storage in water for 24h, teeth were vertically serially sectioned to yield a series of 0.8mm thick slabs. Each slab was trimmed into an hourglass shape of approximately 0.8mm(2) area at the gingival resin-dentin interface. Specimens were tested in tension at 0.5mm/min until failure. Fractured specimens were analyzed in an SEM to determine the failure modes. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between groups restored with and without a low-viscosity composite liner (p>0.05). Among filling techniques, the bulk filling groups presented the lowest bond strength values (p<0.05), while incremental filling groups did not differ from control (flat dentin surfaces). Failure modes varied significantly among groups restored with and without the low-viscosity composite liner. SIGNIFICANCE: Bond strengths were not improved when a low-viscosity composite liner was applied, but it remarkably influenced the failure modes. Incremental techniques improved bond strength.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that the effects of filling technique, cavity configuration and use of a low-viscosity composite liner influence resin bond strength to the dentin of class II cavities gingival floor; and analyze the failure modes of fractured specimens. METHODS: Standardized class II cavities were prepared in the proximal surfaces of freshly extracted third molars, which were randomly assigned to 10 experimental groups. All prepared surfaces were acid-etched, bonded with Single Bond adhesive system and restored with TPH composite, according to each technique: G1 and G2-horizontal layering, G3 and G4-faciolingual layering, G5 and G6-oblique layering, G7 and G8-bulk filling, G9 and G10-control (flat dentin surfaces). Groups were tested, with or without a low-viscosity composite liner (Tetric Flow Chroma). After storage in water for 24h, teeth were vertically serially sectioned to yield a series of 0.8mm thick slabs. Each slab was trimmed into an hourglass shape of approximately 0.8mm(2) area at the gingival resin-dentin interface. Specimens were tested in tension at 0.5mm/min until failure. Fractured specimens were analyzed in an SEM to determine the failure modes. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between groups restored with and without a low-viscosity composite liner (p>0.05). Among filling techniques, the bulk filling groups presented the lowest bond strength values (p<0.05), while incremental filling groups did not differ from control (flat dentin surfaces). Failure modes varied significantly among groups restored with and without the low-viscosity composite liner. SIGNIFICANCE: Bond strengths were not improved when a low-viscosity composite liner was applied, but it remarkably influenced the failure modes. Incremental techniques improved bond strength.
Authors: Larissa Marinho Azevedo; Leslie Carol Casas-Apayco; Carlos Andres Villavicencio Espinoza; Linda Wang; Maria Fidela de Lima Navarro; Maria Teresa Atta Journal: J Appl Oral Sci Date: 2015 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.698