THE EFFECT OF BONDING AND SURFACE SEALANT APPLICATION ON POSTOPERATIVE SENSITIVITY FROM POSTERIOR COMPOSITES

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to evaluate
the postoperative sensitivity of posterior Class I
composite restoration at short-term, restorated
with two different all-in-one self-etch adhesives
with or without surface sealant application.
Materials and Methods: 44 restorations were
inserted in 11 patients who required Class I
restorations in their molars. Each patient received
4 restorations, thus four groups were formed; (1)
G-Aenial Bond (GC, Japan); (2) Clearfil S3 Bond
(Kuraray, Japan); (3) G-Aenial Bond+Fortify Plus
(Bisco, USA), (4) Clearfil S3 Bond+Fortify Plus.
Sensitivity was evaluated at 24h, 7, 15, and 30
days using cold air, ice, and pressure stimuli using
a visual analog scale. Comparisons of continuous
variables between the sensitivity evaluations were
performed using the Friedman’s One-Way Analysis
of Variance with repeated measures test (p<0.05).
Results: The type of adhesive used and the
application of a surface sealant had no significant
effects in postoperative sensitivity (p>0.05). The
use of Clearfil S3 Bond resulted in almost the same
level of postoperative sensitivity as did the use
of G-Aenial Bond. The highest sensitivity scores
were observed for the surface sealant applied
teeth without any statistical significance (p>0.05).
Conclusion: Self etch adhesives displayed
postoperative sensitivity. The sensitivity scores slightly
decreased at the end of 30 days (p>0.05). Surface
sealant application did not result in a decrease
in sensitivity scores for either dentin adhesives.

Keywords

• All-in-one adhesives; surface sealant; postoperative sensitivity

Yüzey Örtücü Uygulaması ve Bonding’in Arka Bölge Restorasyonlarda Oluşan Postoperatif Hassasiyet Üzerine Etkisi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı iki farklı all-in-one self etch adezif ile yüzey örtücü uygulamasının arka bölge sınıf I restorasyonlarda oluşan postoperatif hassasiyet üzerine etkisini değerlendirmektir.Gereç ve Yöntem: Arka bölge azı dişlerinde sınıf I restorasyon endikasyonu bulunan 11 hastada 44 restorasyon bu çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. Her bir hastaya 4 restorasyon yapılmıştır. Restorasyonların tamamlanmasında bonding olarak G-Aenial Bond (GC, Japan) ve Clearfil S3 Bond (Kuraray, Japan), kompozit materyali olarak Clearfil Majesty Posterior (Kuraray, Japan) kullanılmıştır. Restorasyonların tamamlanmasının arkasından her bir bağlayıcının uygulandığı iki dişten rastgele seçilen bir tanesine yüzey örtücü (Fortify Plus, Bisco, USA) uygulanmıştır. Hassasiyet değerlendirmesi soğuk hava uygulaması, buz ve basınç uygulaması ile 24 saat, 7, 15 ve 30 gün sonunda VAS skalası kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Hassasiyet değerlerinin karşılaştırmasında Friedmen Tek yönlü varyans analizi kullanılmıştır (p < 0.05). Bulgular: 30 gün sonunda 44 restorasyon incelenmiştir. Çalışmada incelenen adezif veya yüzey örtücü, restorasyonların hassasiyet skorlarında anlamlı bir değişikliğe sebep olmamıştır. Clearfil S3 Bond ve G-Aenial bond hemen hemen aynı hassasiyet skorları sergilemişlerdir. En yüksek hassasiyet, yüzey örtücü uygulanmış dişlerden elde edilmiştir. Sonuç: Self etch adezif sistemler restorasyonlarda hassasiyete sebep olmuşlardır. Restorasyonlardaki hassasiyet 30 gün sonunda hafif düzeyde azalmıştır. Yüzey örtücü uygulaması hassasiyet skorlarında azalmaya sebep olmamıştır

Keywords

• All-in-one adezifler, yüzey örtücü, postoperatif hassasiyet

References

1. Akpata ES, Behbehani J. Effect of bonding
2. systems on postoperative sensitivity from
3. posterior composites. Am J Dent 2006;19(3):151-
4. -
5. Akpata ES, Sadiq W. Postoperative sensitivity
6. in glass-ionomer versus adhesive resin-lined
7. posterior composites. Am J Dent 2001;14(1):34-
8. -

9. Tay FR, King NM, Chan KM, Pashley DH.
10. How can nanoleakage occur in self-etching
11. adhesive systems that demineralize and infiltrate
12. simultaneously? J Adhes Dent 2002;4(4):255-
13. -
14. Unemori M, Matsuya Y, Akashi A, Goto Y,
15. Akamine A. Composite resin restoration and
16. postoperative sensitivity: Clinical follow-up in an
17. undergraduate program. J Dent 2001;29(1):7-13.
18. van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. A 7-year randomized
19. prospective study of a one-step self-etching
20. adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. The
21. effect of curing modes and restorative material.
22. J Dent 2012;40(12):1060-1067.
23. Lutz F, Krejci I, Barbakow F. Quality
24. and durability of marginal adaptation in
25. bonded composite restorations. Dent Mater
26. ;7(2):107-113.
27. Irie M, Tanaka J, Maruo Y, Nishigawa G.
28. Vertical and horizontal polymerization
29. shrinkage in composite restorations. Dent Mater
30. ;30(7):e189-198.
31. Chen HY, Manhart J, Hickel R, Kunzelmann
32. KH. Polymerization contraction stress in lightcured
33. packable composite resins. Dent Mater
34. ;17(3):253-259.
35. Ferracane JL. Buonocore lecture. Placing dental
36. composites--a stressful experience. Oper Dent
37. ;33(3):247-257.
38. Opdam NJ, Feilzer AJ, Roeters JJ, Smale I. Class
39. i occlusal composite resin restorations: In vivo
40. postoperative sensitivity, wall adaptation, and
41. microleakage. Am J Dent 1998;11(5):229-234.
42. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Have dentin adhesives
43. become too hydrophilic? J Can Dent Assoc
44. ;69(11):726-731.
45. Carvalho RM, Chersoni S, Frankenberger R,
46. Pashley DH, Prati C, Tay FR. A challenge to the
47. conventional wisdom that simultaneous etching
48. and resin infiltration always occurs in self-etch
49. adhesives. Biomaterials 2005;26(9):1035-1042.
50. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Suh BI, Carvalho
51. RM, Itthagarun A. Single-step adhesives are
52. permeable membranes. J Dent 2002;30(7-
53. :371-382.
54. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Yiu CK, Sanares AM, Wei
55. SH. Factors contributing to the incompatibility
56. between simplified-step adhesives and
57. chemically-cured or dual-cured composites. Part
58. i. Single-step self-etching adhesive. J Adhes
59. Dent 2003;5(1):27-40.
60. Unemori M, Matsuya Y, Akashi A, Goto
61. Y, Akamine A. Self-etching adhesives
62. and postoperative sensitivity. Am J Dent
63. ;17(3):191-195.
64. Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, Peumans M, De
65. Munck J, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. The
66. role of hema in one-step self-etch adhesives.
67. Dent Mater 2008;24(10):1412-1419.
68. Casselli DS, Martins LR. Postoperative
69. sensitivity in class i composite resin restorations
70. in vivo. J Adhes Dent 2006;8(1):53-58.
71. Dickinson GL, Leinfelder KF, Mazer RB,
72. Russell CM. Effect of surface penetrating sealant
73. on wear rate of posterior composite resins. J Am
74. Dent Assoc 1990;121(2):251-255.
75. Delfino CS, Duarte S, Jr. Effect of the
76. composite surface sealant application moment
77. on marginal sealing of compactable composite
78. resin restoration. J Mater Sci Mater Med
79. ;18(12):2257-2261.
80. Erhardt MC, Magalhaes CS, Serra MC. The effect
81. of rebonding on microleakage of class v aesthetic
82. restorations. Oper Dent 2002;27(4):396-402.
83. Lima AF, Soares GP, Vasconcellos PH,
84. Ambrosano GM, Marchi GM, Lovadino JR,
85. Aguiar FH. Effect of surface sealants on
86. microleakage of class ii restorations after
87. thermocycling and long-term water storage. J
88. Adhes Dent 2011;13(3):249-254.
89. Munro GA, Hilton TJ, Hermesch CB. In vitro
90. microleakage of etched and rebonded class
91. composite resin restorations. Oper Dent
92. ;21(5):203-208.
93. Owens BM, Johnson WW. Effect of new
94. generation surface sealants on the marginal
95. permeability of class v resin composite
96. restorations. Oper Dent 2006;31(4):481-488.
97. Al-Omari WM, Al-Omari QD, Omar R. Effect of
98. cavity disinfection on postoperative sensitivity
99. associated with amalgam restorations. Oper Dent
100. ;31(2):165-170.
101. Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjor
102. IA, Peters M, Rousson V, Randall R, Schmalz
103. G, Tyas M, Vanherle G. Recommendations for
104. conducting controlled clinical studies of dental
105. restorative materials. Science committee project
106. /98--fdi world dental federation study design (part
107. i) and criteria for evaluation (part ii) of direct and
108. indirect restorations including onlays and partial
109. crowns. J Adhes Dent 2007;9 Suppl 1(121-147).
110. Van Landuyt KL, Peumans M, Fieuws S, De
111. Munck J, Cardoso MV, Ermis RB, Lambrechts
112. P, Van Meerbeek B. A randomized controlled
113. clinical trial of a hema-free all-in-one adhesive
114. in non-carious cervical lesions at 1 year. J Dent
115. ;36(10):847-855.
116. Mannion AF, Balague F, Pellise F, Cedraschi C.
117. Pain measurement in patients with low back pain.
118. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol 2007;3(11):610-618.
119. Burrow MF, Banomyong D, Harnirattisai C,
120. Messer HH. Effect of glass-ionomer cement lining
121. on postoperative sensitivity in occlusal cavities
122. restored with resin composite--a randomized
123. clinical trial. Oper Dent 2009;34(6):648-655.
124. Perdigao J, Anauate-Netto C, Carmo AR, Hodges
125. JS, Cordeiro HJ, Lewgoy HR, Dutra-Correa M,
126. Castilhos N, Amore R. The effect of adhesive and
127. flowable composite on postoperative sensitivity:
128. -week results. Quintessence Int 2004;35(10):777-
129. -
130. Weiner RS, Weiner LK, Kugel G. Teaching
131. the use of bases and liners: A survey of north
132. american dental schools. J Am Dent Assoc
133. ;127(11):1640-1645.
134. Pashley EL, Agee KA, Pashley DH, Tay FR.
135. Effects of one versus two applications of an
136. unfilled, all-in-one adhesive on dentine bonding.
137. J Dent 2002;30(2-3):83-90.
138. Yiu CK, Pashley EL, Hiraishi N, King NM,
139. Goracci C, Ferrari M, Carvalho RM, Pashley DH,
140. Tay FR. Solvent and water retention in dental
141. adhesive blends after evaporation. Biomaterials
142. ;26(34):6863-6872.
143. Gwinnett AJ, Kanca JA, 3rd. Micromorphology
144. of the bonded dentin interface and its relationship
145. to bond strength. Am J Dent 1992;5(2):73-77.
146. Puckett AD, Fitchie JG, Kirk PC, Gamblin J.
147. Direct composite restorative materials. Dent Clin
148. North Am 2007;51(3):659-675.
149. Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Polymerization
150. shrinkage and contraction stress of dental resin
151. composites. Dent Mater 2005;21(12):1150-1157.
152. Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Marginal
153. integrity related to bond strength and strain
154. capacity of composite resin restorative systems.
155. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64(6):658-664.
156. Van Landuyt KL, Mine A, De Munck J, Jaecques
157. S, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek
158. B. Are one-step adhesives easier to use and
159. better performing? Multifactorial assessment
160. of contemporary one-step self-etching adhesives.
161. J Adhes Dent 2009;11(3):175-190.
162. Tay FR, King NM, Suh BI, Pashley DH. Effect of
163. delayed activation of light-cured resin composites
164. on bonding of all-in-one adhesives. J Adhes Dent
165. ;3(3):207-225.
166. Uno S, Abo T, Tanaka T, Sano H. In vitro sealing
167. performance of two one-step adhesive systems
168. in cervical cavities. J Adhes Dent 2004;6(3):211-
169. -
170. Letzel H. Survival rates and reasons for failure
171. of posterior composite restorations in multicentre
172. clinical trial. J Dent 1989;17 Suppl 1(S10-17);
173. discussion S26-18.
174. Gordan VV, Mjor IA. Short- and long-term
175. clinical evaluation of postoperative sensitivity
176. of a new resin-based restorative material and selfetching
177. primer. Oper Dent 2002;27(6):543-548.
178. Pashley DH, Pashley EL, Carvalho RM, Tay FR.
179. The effects of dentin permeability on restorative
180. dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2002;46(2):211-
181. -
182. Sarrett DC. Clinical challenges and the relevance
183. of materials testing for posterior composite
184. restorations. Dent Mater 2005;21(1):9-20.