Does a low-shrinking composite induce less stress at the adhesive interface?

Van Ende, Annelies; De Munck, Jan; Mine, Atsushi; Lambrechts, Paul; Van Meerbeek, Bart

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2009.10.003

« Previous Next »Dental Materials
Volume 26, Issue 3 , Pages 215-222, March 2010

Does a low-shrinking composite induce less stress at the adhesive interface?

Leuven BIOMAT Research Cluster, Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-facial Surgery, Catholic University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, 3000 Leuven, Belgium

Received 19 March 2009; received in revised form 20 June 2009; accepted 9 October 2009.

Abstract

Objectives

Polymerization shrinkage of a composite in a high configuration-factor (C-factor) cavity leads to polymerization shrinkage stress. In the prevention of high polymerization shrinkage stress, a low-shrinking silorane composite (Filtek Silorane, FS, 3M ESPE) was recently marketed. Therefore, we investigated the effect of C-factor (flat surface vs. class-I cavity) and different composite application protocols on the bonding effectiveness of a low-shrinking composite to human dentin.

Methods

A low-shrinking silorane-based composite (FS) and a conventional methacrylate-based composite (Filtek Z100, 3M-ESPE) were bonded to standardized occlusal class-I cavities (4mm×4mm×2.5mm) and to flat mid-coronal dentin surfaces using the two-step self-etch adhesive ‘Silorane System Adhesive’ (3M-ESPE). Eight experimental groups were formed, according to the following treatment protocols: Z100 ‘flat’(1), Z100 ‘cavity’(2), FS ‘flat’(3), FS ‘flat/bulk-filled’(4), FS ‘cavity/bulk-filled’(5), FS ‘cavity/layered-filled’(6), FS ‘cavity/flowable cured’(7) and FS ‘cavity/flowable uncured’(8). For each group, at least 5 teeth were used. After 1 week of water storage, the teeth were sectioned to 1mm×1mm (non-trimmed) sticks to measure the micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS).

Results

No statistical difference in μTBS was recorded between Z100 ‘flat’(1) and FS ‘flat’(3). Bonding to class-I cavity dentin lowered the μTBS in all groups, but this was only statistically significant for FS ‘cavity/bulk-filled’(5) and FS ‘cavity/flowable uncured’(8).

Significance

Using the two-step self-etch Silorane System Adhesive, the conventional composite Filtek Z100 and the low-shrinking composite Filtek Silorane bonded equally well to dentin. Bulk-filling with Filtek Silorane (FS ‘flat/bulk-filled’(4)) significantly decreased the μTBS, suggesting that factors other than polymerization shrinkage influenced the μTBS.

Keywords: Adhesion, Dentin, Composite, Silorane, Micro-tensile bond strength, Polymerization shrinkage