Published online Sep 30, 2008.
https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2008.33.5.472
The influence of cavity configuration on the microtensile bond strength between composite resin and dentin
Abstract
This study was conducted to evaluate the influence of the C-factor on the bond strength of a 6th generation self-etching system by measuring the microtensile bond strength of four types of restorations classified by different C-factors with an identical depth of dentin.
Eighty human molars were divided into four experimental groups, each of which had a C-factor of 0.25, 2, 3 or 4. Each group was then further divided into four subgroups based on the adhesive and composite resin used. The adhesives used for this study were AQ Bond Plus (Sun Medical, Japan) and Xeno III (DENTSPLY, Germany). And composite resins used were Fantasista (Sun Medical, Japan) and Ceram-X mono (DENTSPLY, Germany).
The results were then analyzed using one-way ANOVA, a Tukey's test, and a Pearson's correlation test and were as follows.
There was no significant difference among C-factor groups with the exception of groups of Xeno III and Ceram-X mono (p < 0.05).
There was no significant difference between any of the adhesives and composite resins in groups with C-factor 0.25, 2 and 4.
There was no correlation between the change in C-factor and microtensile bond strength in the Fantasista groups.
It was concluded that the C-factor of cavities does not have a significant effect on the microtensile bond strength of the restorations when cavities of the same depth of dentin are restored using composite resin in conjunction with the 6th generation self-etching system.
Figure 1
Groups with C-factor 0.25 were prepared on the flat ground dentin surfaces. For the other experimental groups, the cavities were prepared below the ground dentin surfaces.
Schematic diagrams of the four groups of restoration that varied according to each C-value.
Figure 2
Schematic diagram of the specimen of experimental group.
Figure 3
Schematic diagram of the preparation of specimen for microtensile bond test.
Figure 4
Schematic diagram of the specimen for microtensile bond test.
Figure 5
Groups connected with the line are not significantly different according to the one-way ANOVA (p > 0.05)
Graph of the mean microtensile bond strength (MPa) of the Fantasista groups.
Figure 6
Symbols (*) indicate statistically significance at p = 0.05 level
Graph of the mean microtensile bond strength (MPa) of the Ceram-X mono groups.
Table 1
Adhesive systems and composites used in this study
Table 2
Chemical compositions of the adhesive systems
Table 3
Bonding instructions of the adhesive systems
Table 4
Four groups of restoration that varied according to each C-value
Table 5
Mean microtensile bond strength (MPa) of the experimental groups
References
-
Nakajima M, Kanemura N, Pereira PN, Tagami J, Pashley DH. Comparative microtensile bond strength and SEM analysis of bonding to wet and dry dentin. Am J Dent 2000;13:324–328.
-
-
Mallmann A, Soares FZM, Placido E, Ferrari M, Cardoso PEC. Microtensile dentin bond strength of self-etching and single-bottle adhesive systems in different cavity configurations. J Adhes Dent 2003;5:121–127.
-
-
Kim BK. In: The influence of the cavity configuration on the bond strength between composite resin and dentin. Seoul: Yonsei University Graduate School; 2007.Master's degree.
-
-
Prati C, Pashley DH. Dentin wetness, permeability and thickness and bond strength of adhesive systems. Am J Dent 1992;5:33–38.
-
-
Choi KK, Ferracane JL, Ryu GJ, Choi SM, Lee MJ, Park SJ. Effects of cavity configuration on composite restoration. Oper Dent 2004;29:462–469.
-
-
Kishikawa R, Koiwa A, Chikawa H, Cho E, Inai N, Tagami J. Effect of cavity form on adhesion to cavity floor. Am J Dent 2005;18:311–314.
-