Journal of Conservative Dentistry

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year
: 2015  |  Volume : 18  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 488--491

Effect of silorane-based adhesive system on bond strength between composite and dentin substrate


Jefferson Ricardo Pereira1, Lindomar Corrêa Júnior1, Mauro de Souza Almeida1, Accácio Lins do Valle2, Heitor Marques Honório3, Hugo Alberto Vidotti2, Grace Mendonca De Souza4,  
1 Department of Prosthodontics, University of Southern Santa Catarina, Tubarão, Santa Catarina, Brazil
2 Department of Prosthodontics, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil
3 Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Orthodontics and Community Health , University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil
4 Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Jefferson Ricardo Pereira
Rua Recife 200 - Apart 601 - Bairro Recife Tubarão/SC, CEP: 88790-000
Brazil

Abstract

Context: The complexities of the oral environment, the dentin substrate, and the different bond and composite resin systems represent a challenge to the maintenance of reasonable bond between the composite resin and the tooth structure. Aims: To evaluate the effect of the adhesive system on bond strength between silorane-based composite resin and dentin. Materials and Methods: Fourteen human molars extracted were selected and vertically cut into 3 dentin fragments, randomly divided among the experimental groups and restored with Z250 and P90 composite resin using different adhesive protocols (Adper Single Bond 2, Silorano primer, Adper SE Plus, and Scotchbond Multiuse). Two composite resin cylinders were built up on each dentin surface (n = 10) and subjected to a micro-shear bond strength test. Statistical Analysis Used: Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance and Tukey test (P = 0.05). Results: According to the results, Kruskal-Wallis test evidenced at least one statistical significant difference (P = 0.001). The Tukey test showed statistically significant differences among the group (P < 0.05). Group PSM8 (P90 + SM) showed statically significant higher results when compared with groups PSP4 (P90 + SP), PSB2 (P90 + SB), and ZSE5 (Z250 + SE). Conclusion: The results evidenced that the monomer of the adhesive system has an effect on bond strength between the composite resin and dentin.



How to cite this article:
Pereira JR, Júnior LC, de Souza Almeida M, do Valle AL, Honório HM, Vidotti HA, De Souza GM. Effect of silorane-based adhesive system on bond strength between composite and dentin substrate.J Conserv Dent 2015;18:488-491


How to cite this URL:
Pereira JR, Júnior LC, de Souza Almeida M, do Valle AL, Honório HM, Vidotti HA, De Souza GM. Effect of silorane-based adhesive system on bond strength between composite and dentin substrate. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2015 [cited 2020 Apr 8 ];18:488-491
Available from: http://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2015/18/6/488/168833


Full Text

 INTRODUCTION



Composite resin, due to its high esthetic potential, was initially recommended for the restoration of anterior teeth. However, after the improvement of this group of materials, resulting in better mechanical properties and wear resistance, its use could be recommended for posterior teeth. [1]

The development of composite resins with methacrylate matrix leads to its acceptance as a restorative material for several clinical applications. Nevertheless, this restorative system still presents limitations such as greater abrasion potential when compared to silver amalgam, possible pulpal damage associated with the bond system application, [2],[3] and the polymerization shrinkage. [4]

As a restorative alternative for different clinical conditions, a silorane-based restorative system was developed, obtained by the combination of oxirane and siloxane molecules. During the polymerization of this monomer, molecules become larger with increasing conversion degree and reducing postoperative sensitivity and microleakage, due to the absence of gaps at the interface. [5]

In clinical applications, a silorane-based composite is used with its specific self-etching adhesive system, aiming to provide resistant and durable bonding to enamel and dentin, besides excellent marginal integrity. To ensure maintenance of integrity at the adhesive interface, it is important to combine lower polymerization contraction and high bond strength values. [5],[6] However, the complexities of the oral environment, the dentin substrate, and the different bond and composite resin systems represent a challenge to the maintenance of reasonable bond between the composite resin and the tooth structure. [7],[8],[9]

When dentin is compared to enamel, it represents a challenge to obtain the maintenance of bond durability and stability, once the composition is characterized by a collagen matrix involved by inorganic material, with approximately 20% water. [7],[8] Dentin also represents physiological and morphological varieties; in other words, tooth age related to the aggression of dental element has been exposed in the oral cavity, changes its characteristics, and makes it less resistant to acid etching. [10],[11]

Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the effect of the adhesive system on bond strength between the silorane-based composite resin and dentin. The null hypothesis of this research is that the monomer of the adhesive system does not affect bond strength between the composite resin and dentin.

 Materials and Methods



Fourteen sound human molars extracted no later than 90 days and stored in 10% formalin [12] had their roots cleaned with periodontal curette (S.S. White/Duflex, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil) to remove the soft tissue, and dental prophylaxis using prophy brush, pumice and water was performed on occlusal surface. Teeth were maintained in formalin solution until their usage. The research project was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of University of Southern Santa Catarina.

Teeth were vertically cut in a mesiodistal direction to obtain 2 mm thickness slices. Dental fragments were embedded in circular acrylic resin holders to be polished up to a standard roughness. The exposed surface was submitted to abrasion using a silicon carbide sandpaper (180 μm grit) under water cooling until a 0.5 mm deep flat area of dentin was exposed; 320 and 400 grit silicon carbide papers were used to reduce the surface roughness. Dental fragments were cleaned in ultrasound bath with distilled water for 10 min.

Prior to the bonding procedure, samples were submitted to abrasion using 600 grit sandpapers under water cooling for 30 s to form a smear layer. Three dentin fragments were obtained from each tooth (n = 42) and randomly divided (by drawing lots) among the 8 experimental groups [Table 1]. For the total etch groups (groups 1, 2, 7, and 8), 37% phosphoric acid (3M ESPE, Saint Paul, MN, EUA) was applied to the dentin surface for 15 s, and thoroughly rinsed off by water/air spray for 15 s. Excess water was removed with moist cotton pellet, and the adhesive system was applied. Those samples that did not need previous etching (groups 3, 4, 5, and 6) were cleaned using water spray for 10 s and the excess water was removed as previously described. After corresponding adhesive systems were applied following the manufacturers' directions, a polyethylene matrix with 1 mm internal diameter and 3 mm length was used to build a micro-shear composite resin sample using incremental insertion technique. Two composite resin cylinders were built up on each dentin surface (n = 10). Photoactivation of increments was performed for 40 s from the top of the matrix (750 mW/cm−2 , Optilight Plus; Gnatus, Ribeirão Preto - SP, Brazil) until the cavity was completely filled. After the careful removal of the polyethylene matrix, specimens were stored at 37°C distilled water for 24 h.{Table 1}

Each composite resin cylinder was individually involved by steel wire (0.2 mm diameter) as close as possible to the restorative interface, which was attached to the shear device in an Universal testing machine (DL2000, EMIC, São José dos Pinhais, PR, Brazil), equipped with a 50 N load cell. The loading was applied at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min until the failure of the specimen. The results were obtained in kg f/cm΂ and converted into MPa by considering the surface area at the adhesive interface.

The mean bond strength value for each experimental group was calculated using the load necessary to failure divided by the bonded surface area.

 RESULTS



The normality test (Shapiro-Wilk) failed (P < 0.05). Results were compared among the groups employing Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance and Tukey test, using an overall level of significance of 5%.

According to the results obtained, Kruskal-Wallis test evidenced at least one statistical significant difference (P = 0.001). The Tukey test showed statistically significant differences among the group (P < 0.05) as shown in [Table 2].{Table 2}

 DISCUSSION



Based on the results of the present study, the null hypothesis may be rejected. The results of this study evidenced that the monomer of the adhesive system has an effect on bond strength between the composite resin and dentin.

Micro-shear bond strength test was selected for this research proposal instead of microtensile bond strength because the first one shows more faithful results based on the characteristics of the adhesive interface, whereas the application of orthodontic wire allows for forces to occur at the interface between the tooth surface and the cylinder of resin. [13] Additional advantages of the micro-shear bond strength test are lower cost of equipment required for samples preparation and simplicity of preparation and standardization of the testing area by using microtube matrices, [14] which reduces stress accumulation at the adhesive interface. Thus, the results from micro-shear bond strength are more realistic than the ones presented by microtensile bond strength. [15] Furthermore, microtensile testing presents cohesive failures in the dental substrate due to microfractures in the dentin caused by stress generation during specimen preparation, while the micro-shear specimens show prevalence of adhesive failures. [15]

The possibility of chemical compatibility between silorane-based and methacrylate-based materials was first reported by Santini and Miletic. [16] The authors mentioned that there was a chemical affinity between the silorane bond and the conventional methacrylate-based composite resins. When all groups from Z250 groups were compared with P90 groups using the same adhesive system, there was no statistical difference among them. These results were not predicted and are not in agreement with the manufacturer's recommendations, which assert that the silorane-based adhesive system was developed with a two-step self-etching technique, exclusively for restorations using Filtek P90 composite resin. However, Van Ende et al. [17] say that the composition of the adhesive system recommended for silorane-based composites is methacrylate-based and could be safely employed with conventional composites.

When the self-etching bond system and the total-etching adhesive system were compared to each other using the same composite resin, there was statistically significant difference between groups PSP4 (P90 + SP) and PSM8 (P90 + SM). Like previously described, it seems that the chemical compatibility between the conventional adhesive system and the silorane-based resin is similar to the one that occurs between the silorane composite resin and the particular "silorane-based" adhesive system due to the presence of methacrylate in the adhesive's composition. [16],[18],[19]

The best results founded by group PSM8 (P90 + SM) could be explained by the combination of two different conditions: First of them is the fact that the molecules of silorane-based materials become larger due to polymerized increase of the conversion degree, reducing shrinkage and gaps at the interface. [5] The second is that the use of a three-step conventional adhesive systems has shown the best adhesive strength values in clinical and laboratory tests. [20]

According to the present study, some of the associations employed between adhesive and composite resin presented similar results to the materials with the same composition; however, more studies are necessary to prove its effectiveness in order to encourage its use in a safe way in clinical daily.

 CONCLUSION



Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions may be drawn:

When all groups from Z250 groups were compared with P90 groups using the same adhesive system, there was no statistically difference among them; When self-etching bond system and total-etching adhesive system were compared to each other using the same composite resin, there was statistically significant difference between groups 4 (P90 + SP) and 8 (P90 + SM).

Acknowlegments

The authors thank PIBIC/CNPQ and PUIC/UNISUL for the financial support of this study and 3M ESPE who donated some materials used in this study.

Financial support and sponsorship

The authors thank PIBIC/CNPQ and PUIC/UNISUL for the financial support of this study.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

1Bohaty BS, Ye Q, Misra A, Sene F, Spencer P. Posterior composite restoration update: Focus on factors influencing form and function. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2013;5:33-42.
2Pereira RA, Araujo PA, Castañeda-Espinosa JC, Mondelli RF. Comparative analysis of the shrinkage stress of composite resins. J Appl Oral Sci 2008;16:30-4.
3Yoshiyama M, Matsuo T, Ebisu S, Pashley D. Regional bond strengths of self-etching/self-priming adhesive systems. J Dent 1998;26:609-16.
4Tay FR, Carvalho R, Sano H, Pashley DH. Effect of smear layers on the bonding of a self-etching primer to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2000;2:99-116.
5Alomari Q, Ajlouni R, Omar R. Managing the polymerization shrinkage of resin composite restorations: A review. SADJ 2007;62:12, 14, 16.
6Weinmann W, Thalacker C, Guggenberger R. Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater 2005;21:68-74.
7Aguiar FH, Catelan A, Caetanoc T, Borges BC, Soaresb GP, Giorgi MC, et al. Influence of light source and curing time on the hardness of silorane-based composite. J Res Dent 2013;1:10-5.
8Marshall GW Jr, Marshall SJ, Kinney JH, Balooch M. The dentin substrate: Structure and properties related to bonding. J Dent 1997;25:441-58.
9Barreto BC, Catelan A, Aleixo MB, Silva GR, Xavier TA, Flávio FH, et al. Effect of cpp-acp on the bond strength of silorane and methacrylate based restorative systems. J Res Dent 2013;1:64-71.
10Al-Ehaideb A, Mohammed H. Shear bond strength of "one bottle" dentin adhesives. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:408-12.
11Hebling J, Castro FL, Costa CA. Adhesive performance of dentin bonding agents applied in vivo and in vitro. Effect of intrapulpal pressure and dentin depth. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2007;83: 295-303.
12Lee JJ, Nettey-Marbell A, Cook A Jr, Pimenta LA, Leonard R, Ritter AV. Using extracted teeth for research: The effect of storage medium and sterilization on dentin bond strengths. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138:1599-603.
13Shimada Y, Kikushima D, Tagami J. Micro-shear bond strength of resin-bonding systems to cervical enamel. Am J Dent 2002;15:373-7.
14Foong J, Lee K, Nguyen C, Tang G, Austin D, Ch′ng C, et al. Comparison of microshear bond strengths of four self-etching bonding systems to enamel using two test methods. Aust Dent J 2006;51:252-7.
15Ferrari M, Goracci C, Sadek F, Eduardo P, Cardoso C. Microtensile bond strength tests: Scanning electron microscopy evaluation of sample integrity before testing. Eur J Oral Sci 2002;110:385-91.
16Santini A, Miletic V. Comparison of the hybrid layer formed by Silorane adhesive, one-step self-etch and etch and rinse systems using confocal micro-Raman spectroscopy and SEM. J Dent 2008;36:683-91.
17Van Ende A, De Munck J, Mine A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Does a low-shrinking composite induce less stress at the adhesive interface? Dent Mater 2010;26:215-22.
18Sauro S, Pashley DH, Mannocci F, Tay FR, Pilecki P, Sherriff M, et al. Micropermeability of current self-etching and etch-and-rinse adhesives bonded to deep dentine: A comparison study using a double-staining/confocal microscopy technique. Eur J Oral Sci 2008;116:184-93.
19De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Coutinho E, Poitevin A, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, et al. Micro-tensile bond strength of adhesives bonded to class-I cavity-bottom dentin after thermo-cycling. Dent Mater 2005;21:999-1007.
20Seemann R, Flury S, Pfefferkorn F, Lussi A, Noack MJ. Restorative dentistry and restorative materials over the next 20 years: A Delphi survey. Dent Mater 2014;30:442-8.