The aim of the study was to compare the composite adaptation of three systems by using cross-polarization optical coherence tomography (CP-OCT).
Background data:
Most polymer-based restorations suffer from polymerization shrinkage that affects the interfacial seal. This shrinkage cannot be detected by conventional X-ray methods. Optical coherence tomography was proved to be a reliable non-invasive imaging tool to examine biological structures and biomaterials at micron scale.
Methods:
Twenty-four cylindrical class-V cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces of the extracted human molars. After cavity preparation, samples were randomly divided into three groups (n = 8) according to the restoration system: one-step self-etch Clearfil Tri-S Bond Plus with Clearfil Majesty ES-2 composite (TS; Kuraray Noritake Dental), Single Bond Universal in self-etch mode with Filtek Z350 XT composite (SB; 3M ESPE), and one-step self-etch Plafique Bond with Plafique LX 5 composite (PB; Tokuyama Dental). The restoration placement was carried out according to the manufacturers' recommendations. Later, the specimens were immersed in a contrasting agent; then, image acquisitions were taken by CP-OCT to calculate the adaptation percentage by using an image analysis software.
Results:
Mann–Whitney U test showed no statistical significant difference in the adaptation percentage between TS (91.72 ± 11.6) and SB (93.43 ± 6.9) groups (p > 0.05). However, the adaptation percentage in PB (41.83 ± 28.5) was significantly lower than in the other tested groups (p < 0.05).
Conclusions:
Within the limitation of the study, TS and SB groups showed better adaptation than PB. Moreover, CP-OCT is a useful imaging tool that can display composite adaptation at micron scale.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MargvelashviliM, GoracciC, BeloicaM, PapacchiniF, FerrariM. In vitro evaluation of bonding effectiveness to dentin of all-in-one adhesives. J Dent, 2010; 38:106–112.
2.
BakhshTA, SadrA, ShimadaYet al.Concurrent evaluation of composite internal adaptation and bond strength in a class-I cavity. J Dent, 2013; 41:60–70.
3.
BakhshTA, SadrA, ShimadaY, TagamiJ, SumiY. Non-invasive quantification of resin-dentin interfacial gaps using optical coherence tomography: validation against confocal microscopy. Dent Mater, 2011; 27:915–925.
4.
PoonEC, SmalesRJ, YipKH. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites: results at 3.5 years. J Am Dent Assoc, 2005; 136:1533–1540.
5.
OpdamNJ, RoetersFJ, VerdonschotEH. Adaptation and radiographic evaluation of four adhesive systems. J Dent, 1997; 25:391–397.
6.
HaakR, WichtMJ, HellmichM, NoackMJ. Detection of marginal defects of composite restorations with conventional and digital radiographs. Eur J Oral Sci, 2002; 110:282–286.
7.
NevesAA, JaecquesS, Van EndeA, et al.3D-microleakage assessment of adhesive interfaces: exploratory findings by muCT. Dent Mater, 2014; 30:799–807.
8.
LiedkeGS, Spin-NetoR, VizzottoMB, da SilveiraPF, WenzelA, da SilveiraHE. Diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography sections with various thicknesses for detecting misfit between the tooth and restoration in metal-restored teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 2015; 120:e131–e137.
ColstonBWJr., EverettMJ, SathyamUS, DaSilvaLB, OtisLL.Imaging of the oral cavity using optical coherence tomography. Monogr Oral Sci, 2000; 17:32–55.
12.
LentonP, RudneyJ, ChenR, FokA, AparicioC, JonesRS. Imaging in vivo secondary caries and ex vivo dental biofilms using cross-polarization optical coherence tomography. Dent Mater, 2012; 28:792–800.
13.
ImaiK, ShimadaY, SadrA, SumiY, TagamiJ. Noninvasive cross-sectional visualization of enamel cracks by optical coherence tomography in vitro. J Endod, 2012; 38:1269–1274.
14.
MandurahMM, SadrA, ShimadaYet al.Monitoring remineralization of enamel subsurface lesions by optical coherence tomography. J Biomed Opt, 2013; 18:046006.
15.
BakhshTA.Ultrastructural features of dentinoenamel junction revealed by focused gallium ion beam milling. J Microsc, 2016; 264:14–21.
16.
BakhshTA, BakryAS, MandurahMM, AbbassyMA. Novel evaluation and treatment techniques for white spot lesions. An in vitro study. Orthod Craniofac Res, 2017; 20:170–176.
17.
BakhshTA, SadrA, ShimadaY, KhunkarS, TagamiJ, SumiY. Relationship between non-destructive OCT evaluation of resins composites and bond strength in a cavity. In: Proceedings of SPIE, San Francisco CA, 2012; p. 8208.
18.
NeeA, ChanK, KangH, StaninecM, DarlingCL, FriedD. Longitudinal monitoring of demineralization peripheral to orthodontic brackets using cross polarization optical coherence tomography. J Dent, 2014; 42:547–555.
SimonJC, KangH, StaninecM, et al.Near-IR and CP-OCT imaging of suspected occlusal caries lesions. Lasers Surg Med, 2017; 49:215–224.
21.
BakhshTA, Al-ZayerM, Al-SahwanN, et al.Comparative SEM observation of silver-nitrate at resin-dentin interface: nanoleakage study. Oral Health Care, 2017; 2:1–5.
22.
TayFR, PashleyDH, YoshiyamaM. Two modes of nanoleakage expression in single-step adhesives. J Dent Res, 2002; 81:472–476.
23.
TurkistaniA, SadrA, ShimadaY, NikaidoT, SumiY, TagamiJ. Sealing performance of resin cements before and after thermal cycling: evaluation by optical coherence tomography. Dent Mater, 2014; 30:993–1004.
24.
SinghTV, PatilJP, RajuRC, VenigallaBS, JyotsnaSV, BhutaniN. Comparison of effect of C-factor on bond strength to human dentin using different composite resin materials. J Clin Diagn Res, 2015; 9:ZC88–ZC91.
25.
StansburyJW.Dimethacrylate network formation and polymer property evolution as determined by the selection of monomers and curing conditions. Dent Mater, 2012; 28:13–22.
26.
DavidsonCL, de GeeAJ, FeilzerA. The competition between the composite-dentin bond strength and the polymerization contraction stress. J Dent Res, 1984; 63:1396–1399.
27.
FeilzerAJ, De GeeAJ, DavidsonCL. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. J Dent Res, 1987; 66:1636–1639.
28.
KimKH, OngJL, OkunoO. The effect of filler loading and morphology on the mechanical properties of contemporary composites. J Prosthet Dent, 2002; 87:642–649.
29.
IrmakO, BaltaciogluIH, UlusoyN, BagisYH. Solvent type influences bond strength to air or blot-dried dentin. BMC Oral Health, 2016; 16:77.
30.
TayFR, GwinnettJA, WeiSH. Relation between water content in acetone/alcohol-based primer and interfacial ultrastructure. J Dent, 1998; 26:147–156.
31.
PashleyDH, CarvalhoRM, TayFR, AgeeKA, LeeKW. Solvation of dried dentin matrix by water and other polar solvents. Am J Dent, 2002; 15:97–102.
32.
JeeSE, ZhouJ, TanJ, et al.Investigation of ethanol infiltration into demineralized dentin collagen fibrils using molecular dynamics simulations. Acta Biomater, 2016; 36:175–185.
33.
LiN, NikaidoT, TakagakiT, et al.The role of functional monomers in bonding to enamel: acid-base resistant zone and bonding performance. J Dent, 2010; 38:722–730.
34.
YoshidaY, YoshiharaK, HayakawaS, et al.HEMA inhibits interfacial nano-layering of the functional monomer MDP. J Dent Res, 2012; 91:1060–1065.
35.
NurrohmanH, NikaidoT, TakagakiT, SadrA, IchinoseS, TagamiJ. Apatite crystal protection against acid-attack beneath resin-dentin interface with four adhesives: TEM and crystallography evidence. Dent Mater, 2012; 28:e89–e98.
36.
Van LanduytKL, YoshidaY, HirataI, et al.Influence of the chemical structure of functional monomers on their adhesive performance. J Dent Res, 2008; 87:757–761.
37.
YoshidaY, YoshiharaK, NagaokaN, HanabusaM, MatsumotoT, MomoiY. X-ray diffraction analysis of three-dimensional self-reinforcing monomer and its chemical interaction with tooth and hydroxyapatite. Dent Mater J, 2012; 31:697–702.
38.
FuJ, KakudaS, PanF, et al.Bonding performance of a newly developed step-less all-in-one system on dentin. Dent Mater J, 2013; 32:203–211.
39.
BakhshTA, EldesoukyM, AlmaghamsiS, et al.Optical quantification of microgaps at dentin-composite interface. Biomed Phys Eng Express, 2018; 4:045030.
