Microleakage and Shear Punch Bond Strength in Class II Primary Molars Cavities Restored with Low Shrink Silorane Based versus Methacrylate Based Composite using Three Different Techniques.

This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the gingival microleakage in class II cavities in primary molars restored with a low shrink silorane resin composite (Filtek P90) or a nanohybride composite resin (Filtek supreme XT) using three different techniques, (total bonding, closed or open sandwich techniques) lined by nano-filled resin modified glass ionomer cement RMGIC (Ketac N100). Additionally, the shear punch bond strength between the two types of composite and KN100 was also examined. Study design: For microleakage test, two standardized class II slot cavities were prepared in proximal surfaces of 60 sound extracted primary molars which were divided into 2 groups of 30 each according to the type of composite. Each group was subdivided into 3 groups (n = 10) according to the restorative technique used. The restored teeth were examined for microleakage after immersion in 2% methylene blue dye using stereomicroscope at 20 X. Microleakage scores among the groups were compared using Kruskal Wallis test followed by pair wise Mann Whitney U test at P ≤ 0.05. Thirty disc specimens were prepared for determining the shear punch bond strength between the two composite materials and the KN100. Specimens were divided into 5 groups (n = 6) according to the adhesive protocol. The differences in mean bond strength values in MPa between groups were statistically analyzed using ANOVA followed by pair wise Tukey Post hoc test at P ≤ 0.05.Mode of failure was also evaluated for all groups. Results: Both the silorane resin and nano-composite resin showed superior marginal seal with the total bonding technique compared to closed and open sandwich techniques. The recorded mean shear punch bond strength values showed no statistical significant difference between the two resin composites without or with their adhesive bonding systems when bonded to the nano-ionomer. All specimens showed cohesive mode of failures except for silorane resin with Adper Easy Bond Self Etch Adhesive (AEBSEA) which showed adhesive mode of failure. Conclusions: The best marginal seal was obtained with the total bonding technique using both resin composites. The shear punch bond strength between KN100 and the two composite materials was not affected by either of the used adhesive bonding agent.

Microleakage, Shear punch bond strength, Silorane, Filtek Supreme XT, Nanofilled RMGI, Total bonding, Sandwich technique.

1. Bugliarello G. Biomimesis: The road less traveled. The Bridge, 27(3): 2–3, 1997.

2. Ilie N, Hickel R. Silorane-based dental composite: Behavior and abilities. Dent Mater, 25: 445–454, 2006.

3. Dietrich TH, Losche AC, Losche GM, Roulet JF. Marginal adaptation of direct composite and sandwich restorations in class II cavities with cervical margins in dentin. J of Dent, 27: 119–128, 1999.

4. Yip KH, Poon BK, Chu FC, Poo EC, Kong FY, Smales RJ. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin based composite for posterior restorations in permanent teeth: Results at 12 months. JADA, 134: 1581–1589, 2003.

5. Lindberg A, Van Dijken JWV, Lindberg M. Nine-year evaluation of a poly acid-modified resin composite/resin composite open sandwich techniques in class II cavities. J of Dent, 35: 124–129, 2007.

6. Van Dijken JWV, Krejci C, Carlen M. Longevity of extensive class II open sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement. J Dent Res, 78(7): 1319–1325, July 1999.

7. Knibbs P. The clinical performance of a glass polyalkenoate (glass ionomer) cement used in a (sandwich) technique with a composite resin to restore class II cavities. Br Dent J, 172: 102–107, 1992.

8. Van Dijken JW. A 6-year evaluation of a direct composite resin inlay/onlay system and glass ionomer cement- composite resin sandwich restorations. Acta Odontol Scand, 52: 368–376, 1994

9. Davidson CL, Feilzer AJ. Polymerization shrinkage and polymerization stress in polymer-based restoratives. J Dent, 25: 435–440, 1997.

10. Loguercio AD, Reis A, Mazzocco K C, Dras AL, Busato ALS, Singer JDM, Rasa P. Microleakage in class II composite resin restorations: total bonding and open sandwich technique. J of Adhesive Dent, 2: 137–144, 2002.

11. Davidson CL. Glass ionomer bases under posterior composites. J Esthet Dent, 6 :223–224, 1994.

12. Tolidis K, Nobecount A, Raudall RC. Effect of a resin-modified glass ionomer liner on volumetric polymerization shrinkage of various composites. Dent Mater, 14: 417–423, November 1998.

13. Coutinho E, Cardoso MV, De Munck J, Neves AA, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek, B. Bonding effectiveness and interfacial characterization of a nano-filled resinmodified glass-ionomer. Dent Mater 25:1347–1357, 2009.

14. Weinmann W, Thalacker C, Guggenberger R. Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater, 21: 68–74, 2005.

15. Bouillaguet S, Gamba J, Forchelet J, Krejci I, Wataha JC. Dynamics of composite polymerization mediates the development of cuspal strain. Dent Mater, 22: 896–902, 2006.

16. Ilie N, Hickel R. Macro,micro and nano mechanical investigations on Silorane and methacrylate based composites.Dent Mater, 25(6): 810–819, 2009.

17. Duarte S Jr, Phank JH, Varjao FM, Sadan A.Nanoleakage,ultramorphological characteristics, and microtensile bond strengths of a new lowshrinkage composite to dentin after artificial aging. Dent Mater, 25: 589–600, 2009.

18. Reid JS, Saunders WP, Sharkey SW, Williams CE. An in vitro investigations of microleakage and gap size of glass ionomer /composite resin “sandwich” restorations in primary teeth. J Dent Child, 61: 255–259, 1994.

19. Nomoto R, Carrick TE, McCabe J F. Suitability of a shear punch test for dental restorative materials. Dent Mater, 17: 415–421, 2001.

20. Kececi AD, Kaya B, Adanir N. Micro-push-out bond strengths and 2 luting materials, Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Radiol Endod, 105: 121–128, 2008.

21. Van Meerbeek B, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Mine A, Van End A, et al. Relationship between bond strength tests and clinical outcomes. Dent Mat, 26: e100–e121, 2010.

22. Tagami J, Nikaido T, Nakajima M, Shimada Y. Relationship between bond strength tests and other in vitro phenomena. Dent Mater, 26: e94–e99, 2010.

23. Van Meerbeek B. The “myth” of nanoleakage. J Adhes Dent, 9: 491–492, 2007. 24. Fabianelli A ,Pollington S, Davidon C L, Cagidiaco M C, Goraccle C. The relevance of microleakage studies. Int Dent, 19(3): 64–74, 2007.

25. Van Dijken JW. A 6-year clinical evaluation of class I poly-acid modified resin composite/resin composite laminate restorations cured with a two-step curing technique. Dent Mater, 19: 423–428, 2003.

26. Friedle KH, Schmalz G, Hiller KA, Mortazavi F. Marginal adaptation of composite restorations Vs hybrid ionomer/composite sandwich restorations. Oper Dent, 22: 21–29, 1997.

27. Kiremitici A, Yalcin F, Gokalp S. Bonding to enamel and dentin using self-etch adhesive systems. Quintess Int, 35: 367–370, 2004.

28. Van Meerbeek B,De Munck J ,Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M , Vijay P, Van Landuyt K , Lambrechts P , Vanherle G. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: Current status and future challenges. Oper Dent, 28: 215–235, 2003.

29. Atash R, Van Den Abeele A. Bond strengths of eight contemporary adhesives to enamel and dentin: an in vitro study on bovine primary teeth. Int Pediatr Dent, 15: 264-273, 2005.

30. Thonemann B, Federrlin M, Schmalz G, Grundler W. Total bonding Vs selective bonding : Marginal adaptation of class II composite restorations. Oper Dent, 24: 261–271, 1999.

31. Andersson –Wenckert IE, VanDijken JWV, Horsted P. Modified class II open sandwich restorations. Evaluation of interfacial adaptation and influence of different restorative techniques. Eur J Oral Sci, 110: 270–275, 2002.

32. Cannon M. Clinical evaluation of “open sandwich” restorations in pediatric dental practice {abstract}. J Dent Res 81 (special issue): A–81, 2002.

33. Lindberg A, Van Dijken JWV, Lindberg MA. 3year evaluation of new open sandwich techniques in class II cavities. Am J Dent, 16(1): 33–36, 2002.

34. Drummond J L, Sakaguchi RL, Racean DC, Wozny J, Steinberg AD. Testing mode and surface treatment effects on dentin bonding. J Biomed Mater Res, 32: 533–54, 1996

35. Yap Auj, Mok BYY, Pearson EG. An in vitro microleakage study of the “bonded-base” restorative technique. J of Oral Rehab, 24, 230–236, 1997.

36. Tate WH, Friedl KH, Powers JM. Bond strength of composites to hybrid ionomers. Oper Dent, 21: 147–152, 1996.

37. Taher NM, Ateyah NZ. Shear bond strength of resin modified glass ionomer cement bonded to different tooth-colored restorative materials. J of Contemp Dent Practice 8 (2): 1–9, February 1, 2007.

38. Bracckett ww, Huget EF. The effect of etchant and cement age on the adhesion of resin composite to conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements. Quintess Int, 27: 57–61, 1996.

39. Farah CS, Orton VG, Collard SM. Shear bond strength of classical and light –cured glass ionomer cements bonded resin composites. Aust Dent J, 43: 81–86, 1998.