In-Vitro Bond Strength of a Flowable Compomer to Primary Teeth Dentin with Different Applying Techniques

Abstract

Purpose: The study aimed to investigate the effect of applying flowable compomer using different techniques and long-term water storage on microtensile bond strength (µTBS) to primary teeth dentin and present a comparison with packable compomer. Materials and methods: 90 primary molars were used to evaluate the µTBS of the materials. Specimens were randomly divided into 3 main groups for restoration: Group 1 and 4, compomer (Glasiosite, VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany) filling alone; Group 2 and 5, flowable compomer (Twinky Star Flow, VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany) lining/pre-cured and overlaying compomer; and Group 3 and 6, flowable compomer lining/co-cured with overlaying compomer. All specimens were thermocycled (500X), after which half of them (n=45) were stored in distilled water for 24 h (Group A: Groups 1-3), and the remaining half (n=45) for 24 months (Group B: Groups 4-6). Samples were tested for µTBS (1 mm/min) with a microtensile testing machine (T 61010 Ki, Bisco, Schaumburg, USA). Failure modes were determined with the aid of a stereomicroscope. Results were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis H test. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding bond strength (p>0.05). Mixed cohesive failure of both adhesive and dentin was the most common type of failure in all groups (p<0.05). 2-year water storage significantly decreased the bond strength for all groups (p<0.05). Conclusion: Flowable compomers applied using different techniques produced similar bond strength to dentin compared to compomer. However, long-term water storage decreased bond strength significantly.

Keywords

• Flowable compomer
• micro-tensile bond strength
• primary teeth

References

1. Güngör Ö-E, Erdoğan Y, Yalçın-Güngör A, Alkış H. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of three flowable compomers on enamel of primary teeth: An in-vitro study. Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry. J Clin Exp Dent. 2016 Jul;8(3):e322–e326.
2. Ilie N, Schöner C, Bücher K, Hickel R. An in-vitro assessment of the shear bond strength of bulk-fill resin composites to permanent and deciduous teeth. J Dent July 2014;42(7):850-5.
3. Raju VG, Venumbaka NR, Mungara J, Vijayakumar P, Rajendran S, Elangovan A. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength and microleakage of tricalcium silicate-based restorative material and radioopaque posterior glass ionomer restorative cement in primary and permanent teeth: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Den. Oct-Dec 2014;32(4):304-1.
4. Xie H, Zhang F, Wu Y, Chen C, Liu W. Dentine bond strength and microleakage of flowable composite, compomer and glass ionomer cement. Aust Dent J. Dec; 2008;53(4):325-31.
5. Yeolekar TS, Chowdhary NR, Mukunda K, Kiran N. Evaluation of microleakage and marginal ridge fracture resistance of primary molars restored with three restorative materials: A comparative in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent May-Aug 2015;8(2):108-13.
6. Garcia FCP, Wang L, D’Alpino PHP, de Souza JB, de Araújo PA, de Lia Mondelli RF. Evaluation of the roughness and mass loss of the flowable composites after simulated toothbrushing abrasion Braz Oral Res Apr-Jun 2004;18(2):156-61.
7. Qin M, Liu H. Clinical evaluation of a flowable resin composite and flowable compomer for preventive resin restorations. Oper Dent. 2005 Sep-Oct;30(5):580-7.
8. Sadeghi M. Influence of flowable materials on microleakage of nanofilled and hybrid Class II composite restorations with LED and QTH LCUs. Indian J Dent Res. Apr-Jun 2009;20(2):159-63.

9. Türkoğlu Ö, Bağlar S, Bulut AC. Different restorative systems in non carious cervical lesions. Annals of Dental Specialty Apr-Jun 2020;8(2):20-31.
10. Chuang S-F, Liu J-K, Chao C-C, Liao F-P, Chen Y-HM. Effects of flowable composite lining and operator experience on microleakage and internal voids in class II composite restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2001 Feb;85(2):177-83.
11. Reddy SN, Jayashankar D, Nainan M, Shivanna V. The effect of flowable composite lining thickness with various curing techniques on microleakage in class II composite restorations: an in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013 Jan 1;14(1):56-60.
12. Cenci M, Demarco F, de Carvalho R. Class II composite resin restorations with two polymerization techniques: relationship between microtensile bond strength and marginal leakage. J Dent. 2005 Aug;33(7):603-10.
13. Radhika M, Sajjan GS, Kumaraswamy B, Mittal N. Effect of different placement techniques on marginal microleakage of deep class-II cavities restored with two composite resin formulations. J Conserv Dent. 2010 Jan;13(1):9-15.
14. Chuang S-F, Jin Y-T, Liu J-K, Chang C-H, Shieh D-B. Influence of flowable composite lining thickness on Class II composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2004 May-Jun;29(3):301-8.
15. Jackson RD, Morgan M. The new posterior resins and: a simplified placement technique. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000 Mar;131(3):375-83.
16. Tran L, Messer LB. Clinicians choices of restorative materials for children. Aust Dent J. 2003 Dec;48(4):221-32..
17. Shih W-Y. Microleakage in different primary tooth restorations. J Chin Med Assoc. 2016 Apr;79(4):228-34.
18. Zotti F, Falavigna E, Capocasale G, De Santis D, Albanese M. Microleakage of Direct Restorations. Comparisonbetween Bulk-Fill and Traditional Composite Resins: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur J Dent 2021 Oct;15(4):755-767.
19. Estafan D, Agosta C. Eliminating microleakage from the composite resin system. Gen Dent. 2003 Nov-Dec;51(6):506-9.
20. Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift Jr EJ, Stamatiades P, Wilkerson M. A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998 May;129(5):567-77.
21. Bullard RH, Leinfelder KF, Russell CM. Effect of coefficient of thermal expansion on microleakage. J Am Dent Assoc. 1988 Jun;116(7):871-4.
22. Knight GM. The co-cured, light-activated glass-ionomer cement--composite resin restoration. Quintessence Int. 1994 Feb;25(2):97-100.
23. Yazici AR, Baseren M, Dayangac B. The effect of flowable resin composite on microleakage in class V cavities. Oper Dent. Jan-Feb 2003;28(1):42-6.
24. Pashley DH, Sano H, Ciucchi B, Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM. Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents: a review. Dent Mater. 1995 Mar;11(2):117-25.
25. Pashley DH, Carvalho RM, Sano H, Nakajima M, Yoshiyama M, Shono Y, et al. The microtensile bond test: A review. J Adhes Dent. Winter 1999;1(4):299-309.
26. Sano H, Shono T, Sonoda H, Takatsu T, Ciucchi B, Carvalho R, et al. Relationship between surface area for adhesion and tensile bond strength—evaluation of a micro-tensile bond test. Dent Mater. 1994 Jul;10(4):236-40.
27. Shono Y, Ogawa T, Terashita M, Carvalho R, Pashley E, Pashley DH. Regional measurement of resin-dentin bonding as an array. J Dent Res. 1999 Feb;78(2):699-705.
28. Schreiner RF, Chappell RP, Glaros AG, Eick JD. Microtensile testing of dentin adhesives. Dent Mater. 1998 Jun;14(3):194-201.
29. Sudsangiam S, van Noort R. Do dentin bond strength tests serve a useful purpose. J Adhes Dent. Spring 1999;1(1):57-67.
30. Helvatjoglu‐Antoniades M, Papadogiannis Y, Lakes R, Palaghias G, Papadogiannis D. The effect of temperature on viscoelastic properties of glass ionomer cements and compomers. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2007 Feb;80(2):460-7.
31. Freitas PH, Giannini M, França R, Correr AB, Correr-Sobrinho L, Consani S. Correlation between bond strength and nanomechanical properties of adhesive interface. Clin Oral Investig. 2017 May;21(4):1055-1062.
32. De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Suzuki K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Four-year water degradation of total-etch adhesives bonded to dentin. J Dent Res. 2003 Feb;82(2):136-40.