| Literature DB >> 31394743 |
Mohammad Al-Nabulsi1, Alaa Daud2, Cynthia Yiu3, Hanan Omar4, Salvatore Sauro5, Amr Fawzy6, Umer Daood7.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effect of a new application method of bulk-fill flowable composite resin material on bond-strength, nanoleakage, and mechanical properties of dentine bonding agents. <br> MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sound extracted human molars were randomly divided into: manufacturer's instructions (MI), manual blend 2 mm (MB2), and manual blend 4 mm (MB4). Occlusal enamel was removed and flattened, dentin surfaces were bonded by Prime & Bond universal (Dentsply and Optibond FL, Kerr). For the MI group, adhesives were applied following the manufacturer's instructions then light-cured. For MB groups, SDR flow+ bulk-fill flowable composite resin was applied in 2- or 4-mm increment then manually rubbed by a micro brush for 15 s with uncured dentine bonding agents and the mixture was light-cured. Composite buildup was fabricated incrementally using Ceram.X One, Dentsply nanohybrid composite resin restorative material. After 24-h water storage, the teeth were sectioned to obtain beams of about 0.8 mm2 for 24-h and thermocycled micro-tensile bond strength at 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed. Degree of conversion was evaluated with micro-Raman spectroscopy. Contraction gaps at 24 h after polymerization were evaluated and atomic force microscopy (AFM) nano-indentation processes were undertaken for measuring the hardness across the interface. Depth of resin penetration was studied using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Bond strength data was expressed using two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's test. Nanoindentation hardness was separately analyzed using one-way ANOVA. <br> RESULTS: Factors "storage F = 6.3" and "application F = 30.11" significantly affected the bond strength to dentine. For Optibond FL, no significant difference in nanoleakage was found in MI/MB4 groups between baseline and aged specimens; significant difference in nanoleakage score was observed in MB2 groups. Confocal microscopy analysis showed MB2 Optibond FL and Prime & Bond universal specimens diffusing within the dentine. Contraction gap was significantly reduced in MB2 specimens in both adhesive systems. Degree of conversion (DC) of the MB2 specimens were numerically more compared to MS1 in both adhesive systems. <br> CONCLUSION: Present study suggests that the new co-blend technique might have a positive effect on bond strengths of etch-and-rinse adhesives to dentine.Entities:
Keywords: Raman; bond strength; bulk-fill; co-blend; dentine; nanoindentation; resin
Year: 2019 PMID: 31394743 PMCID: PMC6719178 DOI: 10.3390/ma12162504
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Adhesive procedure for the MB2 group; 2 mm of bulk-fill flowable materials rubbed over uncured dentine bonding agent using sterilized micro brush on dentine for 15 s, and light-cured for 20 s. (A) Phosphoric acid applied for 30 s on enamel and 15 s on dentine; (B) excess water removed without desiccation and (C) dentine bonding agent applied as per manufacturer’s instructions (red die added); (D,E) bulk-fill flowable composite resin manually applied (measured with probe) by micro brush with procured dentine bonding agent on dentine and rubbed for 15 s; (F) the mixture is light-cured by LED curing unit (600 mW/cm2) for 20 s; (G) incremental layering technique to build occlusal morphology in the following sequence—mesiopalatal, distobuccal, mesiobuccal, and distopalatal cusps; (H) sagittal cut made in mesiodistal directions showing 2 mm reddish layer of dentine bonding agent with bulk flowable composite resin covered by nanohybrid composite resin.
Chemical composition and components of Optibond FL, Kerr and Prime & Bond Universal, Dentsply adhesive systems.
| Dental Bonding Agent (DBA) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Brand Name, Manufacturer | Optibond FL, Kerr | Prime & Bond Universal |
| Resin monomers | Primer: HEMA, GPDM, PAMM | PENTA (dipentaerythritol pentacrylate phosphate), 10-MDP (10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate), Active GuardTM Technology crosslinker |
| Initiator system | CQ/tertiary amine | CQ/tertiary amine |
| Filler load | 48 w/o | Unfilled |
| Filler size | 0.6 μm | - |
| Filler type | Barium glass | - |
| Solvent type | Ethanol, water | Isopropanol, water |
| Solvent content | 20–30 w/o | 10–24.5% Isopropanol, 5–24.5% water |
| Others | Fluoride | - |
| Delivery systems | bottle | bottle |
Chemical composition and components of Ceram.X One and SDR Flow+ composite resins.
| Composite Resin Restorative Material | ||
|---|---|---|
| Brand name, manufacturer | CERAM.X ONE, Dentsply | SureFil SDR flow+, Dentsply |
| Resin monomers | Poly-urethanemethacrylate, bis-EMA, TEGDMA | Modified urethane dimethacrylate resin, ethoxylated bisphenol-A dimethacrylate (EBPADMA), triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) |
| Initiator/accelerator system | Camphorquinone (CQ)/butylated hydroxyl toluene (BHT) | Camphorquinone (CQ)/butylated hydroxyl toluene (BHT) |
| Filler load | 77–79 w/o (59–61 v/o) | 47.3 v/o |
| Filler size | Organic fillers ≈ 15 μm, non-agglomerated inorganic fillers ≈ 0.6 μm | Inorganic filler from 0.02–10 μm |
| Filler type | Barium glass and ytterbium fluoride fillers | Silanated barium and strontium glass fillers, ytterbium fluoride fillers, Nano fillers |
| Filler shape | Spherical, spray-granulation production method | Unagglomerated (barium and strontium glass fillers), irregularly shaped |
Values of means ± standard deviations, presented in MPa, showing microtensile bond strength after 24 h and following thermocycle ageing in artificial saliva. Uppercase letters/lowercase letters constitute differences between each row while symbols (α, β, γ and ∞) represent differences between the columns. Symbols (†, ‡, ‡‡) indicate differences in degree of conversion between different adhesives.
| Adhesives | Groups | 24 h | Thermocycling 10,000 | DOC % (30 min after light activation) | Nano Hardness (Hi) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Optibond FL, Kerr | MI | 32.1 ± 4.4 A α | 29.9 ± 3.3 a β | 89.22 ± 1.9 ‡‡ | 5.9 ± 0.8 A |
| MB2 | 35.5 ± 5.2 C β | 33.3 ± 7.1 b γ | 91.43 ± 3.3 ‡‡ | 9.8 ± 1.1 B | |
| MB4 | 30.1 ± 8.0 AB α | 28.7 ± 6.3 a β | 78.66 ± 1.8 ‡ | 3.9 ± 2.3 C | |
| Prime & Bond Universal | MI | 36.4 ± 5.5.5 B β | 31.7 ± 8.0 b γ | 80.66 ± 3.1 ‡ | 4.3 ± 0.9 C |
| MB2 | 33.1±6.1 A α | 29.8 ± 6.6 a β | 82.11 ± 1.5 ‡ | 6.4 ± 2.2 BC | |
| MB4 | 27.3 ± 4.9 D ∞ | 24.1.2 ± 2.3 c ∞ | 67.61 ± 2.5 † | 3.8 ± 2.1 C |
Showing the percentage distribution in the mode of failure after 24 h and following thermocycling of aging in artificial saliva. Manner of failure presented: A, at adhesive; CD, cohesive failure in dentine; CC, cohesive failure in resin composite; and M, mixed failure.
| Sub Groups | Failure Mode | Optibond FL, Kerr | Prime & Bond UniversalTM | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 h | Thermocycling 10,000 | 24 h | Thermocycling 10,000 | ||
|
| A | 29 | 39 | 14 | 23 |
| M | 45 | 33 | 44 | 51 | |
| CD | 11 | 8 | 20 | 7 | |
| CC | 15 | 20 | 22 | 19 | |
|
| A | 19 | 23 | 32 | 10 |
| M | 51 | 47 | 60 | 45 | |
| CD | 15 | 8 | 4 | 18 | |
| CC | 15 | 22 | 4 | 27 | |
|
| A | 21 | 31 | 29 | 27 |
| M | 40 | 39 | 38 | 45 | |
| CD | 18 | 6 | 12 | 11 | |
| CC | 21 | 24 | 4 | 17 | |
Figure 2Scanning electron microscope (SEM) micrographs of dentine side of fractured beams following application of bulk-fill flow by manual blend technique. (A) MB Optibond; (B) MB Prime & Bond Universal; (C) MB2 Optibond; (D) MB2 Prime & Bond Universal specimens. Spherical globules (arrowheads) were preferentially found at the orifices of dentinal tubules in all groups except for MI Optibond FL. Evidence of bulk-fill/bonding agent (*) seen with numerous fractured resin tags (arrowheads) can be seen at the base of the hybrid layer.
Outline of nanoleakage scores for the five treatment groups of both adhesives at baseline and after thermocycling. The extent of interfacial nanoleakage presented as 0: 0%; 1: <25%; 2: 25–50%; 3: 50–75%; 4: >75%. Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test (2 × 2 × 5).
| Optibond FL, Kerr | Sub Groups | Nanoleakage Score | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
| MI | 12 | 15 | 17 | 2 | 6 | 0.066 |
| MB2 | 6 | 8 | 12 | 12 | 3 | 0.03 | |
| MB4 | 8 | 9 | 21 | 14 | 5 | 0.512 | |
|
| MI | 1 | 0 | 16 | 16 | 6 | |
| MB2 | 3 | 9 | 28 | 10 | 1 | ||
| MB4 | 0 | 11 | 24 | 5 | 6 | ||
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
| M1 | 4 | 18 | 7 | 9 | 6 | 0.000 |
| MB2 | 3 | 10 | 6 | 11 | 7 | 0.001 | |
| MB4 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 10 | 11 | 0.222 | |
|
| M1 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 9 | 16 | |
| MB2 | 5 | 0 | 9 | 17 | 5 | ||
| MB4 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 3 | 4 | ||
Figure 3Confocal micrograph showing the hybrid layer (HL) and adhesive/bulk-fill resin penetrating dentin (DT). The width of the resin hybrid layer, thickness and length of resin tags, and the area of the adhesive resin within the dentin were measured over a 100 µm length of the axial wall. Bar represents 10 µm. (A) MI Optibond FL; (B) MI Prime & Bond Universal; (C) MB2 Optibond FL; (D) MB2 Prime & Bond Universal.
Figure 4Representative SEM images of the resin–dentin interfaces bonded with manual blend technique. (A) Secondary electron image of MI Optibond FL. An authentic hybrid layer with 5–6-μm-thickness was observed with funnel-shaped resin tags with lateral branches; (B) back-scattering image of MI Prime & Bond Universal specimen; (C) back-scattering image of MB2 Optibond FL specimen along with (D) MB2 Prime & Bond Universal; (E) MB4 Optibond FL; (F) MB4 Prime & Bond Universal. (HL) Hybrid layer.
Contraction gap width (µm) as a function of location.
|
|
|
|
|
| MI | 4.11 ± 1.2 | 0.23 | |
| MB2 | 0.87 ± 0.09 | 0.02 | |
| MB4 | 2.12 ± 0.9 | 0.31 | |
|
| MI | 6.11 ± 2.1 | 0.77 |
| MB2 | 2.43 ± 0.81 | 0.04 | |
| MB4 | 2.12 ± 0.6 | 0.9 |
Figure 5(A) Force deflection curves from nanoindentation of resin dentine specimens; (B) SEM image showing five indentations performed in straight lines along the resin dentine interface; (C) magnified image of nanoindentation; (D) fluorescence single projection of a MB2 resin dentine bonded interface showing an adequate hybrid layer along the resin tags.