Abstract
Biodegradation of the resin-dentin interfaces has been a focus of research over the last decade. Most studies show that degradation of both the collagen and the adhesive take place within short periods of time after bonding, and claim that such loss of structure at the interface opens opportunity for secondary caries initiation and progression thus leading to failure of the restoration. Open margins are further compromised by thermo-mechanical loading and enzymes produced by local bacteria. While marginal gaps appear to be unavoidable, it is remarkable that resin composite restorations can deliver successful clinical service for many years provided preventive and conservative measures to reduce the caries-risk of the patient are applied along with the restorative treatment. This review will look into the evidence from laboratory studies that investigated degradation of bonds and the consequences leading to clinical failure and balance that against the results of clinical trials that evidence the factors associated with the durability and clinical success of resin composite restorations.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance
Mjör IA. The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand. 1997;55:58–63.
Mjör IA, Toffenetti F. Secondary caries: a literature review with case reports. Quintessence Int. 2000;31:165–79.
Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, et al. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007;138:775–83.
Soncini JA, Maserejian NN, Trachtenberg F, et al. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings from the New England Children’s Amalgam Trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007;138:763–72.
Tezvergil-Mutluay A, Pashley DH, Mutluay MM. Long-term durability of dental adhesives. Curr Oral Health Rep. 2015;2:174–81.
Cenci MS, Pereira-Cenci T, Cury JA, et al. Relationship between gap size and dentine secondary caries formation assessed in a microcosm biofilm model. Caries Res. 2009;43:97–102.
Nassar HM, González-Cabezas C. Effect of gap geometry on secondary caries wall lesion development. Caries Res. 2011;45:346–52.
Kuper NK, Opdam NJM, Ruben JL, et al. Gap size and wall lesion development next to composite. J Dent Res. 2014;93 Suppl 7:108S–13.
Kidd EA, Fejerskov O. What constitutes dental caries? Histopathology of carious enamel and dentin related to the action of cariogenic biofilms. J Dent Res. 2004;83(Spec Iss C):C35–C8.
Gaengler P, Hoyer I, Montag R, et al. Micromorphological evaluation of posterior composite restorations: a 10 year report. J Oral Rehabil. 2004;31:991–1000.
Kermanshahi S, Santerre JP, Cvitkovitch DG, et al. Biodegradation of resin-dentin interfaces increases bacterial microleakage. J Dent Res. 2010;89:996–1001.
Bourbia M, Ma D, Cvitkovich DG, et al. Cariogenic bacteria degrade dental resin composites and adhesives. J Dent Res. 2013;92:989–94. This study demonstrates that esterases produced by S. mutans can degrade dental resin-based polymers.
Khvostenko D, Salehi S, Naleway SE, et al. Cyclic mechanical loading promotes bacterial penetration along composite restoration marginal gaps. Dent Mater. 2015;31:702–10. This study demonstrates that mechanical loading of restorations enhances penetration of bacteria into marginal gaps. It is the first study to simultaneously evaluate the effects of biofilm, gaps and load to address the mechanism of secondary caries.
Turkistani A, Nakashima S, Shimada Y, et al. Microgaps and demineralization progress around composite restorations. J Dent Res. 2015;94:1070–7.
Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Donassollo TA, Cenci MS, et al. 22-year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. Dent Mater. 2011;27:955–63.
van de Sande FH, Opdam NJ, Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, et al. Patient risk factors’ influence on survival of posterior composites. J Dent Res. 2013;92(Suppl):78S–83S.
Opdam NJM, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014;93:943–9. This study claims to be the first to apply a meta-analysis approach to review raw data from clinical trials of composite restorations.
Pashley DH, Tay FR, Yiu C, et al. Collagen degradation by host-derived enzymes during aging. J Dent Res. 2004;83:216–21.
Pashley DH, Tay FR, Breschi L, et al. State of the art etch-and-rinse adhesives. Dent Mater. 2011;27:1–16.
Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, et al. State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater. 2011;27:17–28.
Tjäderhane L, Nascimento FD, Breschi L, et al. Optimizing dentin bond durability: control of collagen degradation by matrix metalloproteinases and cysteine cathepsins. Dent Mater. 2013;29:116–35.
Mozner N, Salz U, Zimmerman J. Chemical aspects of self-etching enamel-dentin adhesives. a systematic review. Dent Mater. 2005;21:895–910.
Ito S, Hashimoto M, Wadgaonkar B, et al. Effects of resin hydrophilicity on water sorption and changes in modulus of elasticity. Biomaterials. 2005;26:6449–59.
Yiu C, King NM, Carrilho MR, et al. Effect of resin hydrophilicity and temperature on water sorption of dental adhesive resins. Biomaterials. 2005;26:6863–72.
Manso AP, Bedran-Russo AK, Suh B, et al. Mechanical stability of adhesives under water storage. Dent Mater. 2009;25:744–9.
Spencer P, Ye Q, Park J, et al. Adhesive/dentin interface: the weak link in the composite restoration. Ann Biomed Eng. 2010;38:1989–2003.
Sano H, Yoshiyama M, Ebisu S, et al. Comparative SEM and TEM observations of nanoleakage within the hybrid layer. Oper Dent. 1995;20:160–7.
Okuda M, Pereira PN, Nakajima M, et al. Relationship between nanoleakage and long-term durability of dentin bonds. Oper Dent. 2001;26:482–90.
Armstrong SR, Vargas MA, Chung I, et al. Resin-dentin interfacial ultrastructure and microtensile dentin bond strength after five-year water storage. Oper Dent. 2004;29:705–12.
Hebling J, Pashley DH, Tjäderhane L, et al. Chlorhexidine arrests subclinical degradation of dentin hybrid layers in vivo. J Dent Res. 2005;84:741–6.
Carrilho MR, Geraldeli S, Tay FR, et al. In vivo preservation of the hybrid layer by chlorhexidine. J Dent Res. 2007;86:529–33.
Carvalho RM, Manso AP, Geraldeli S, Tay FR, Pashley DH. Durability of bonds and clinical success of adhesive restorations. Dent Mater. 2012;28:72–86.
Totiam P, Gonzales-Cabezas C, Fontana MR, et al. A new in vitro model to study the relationship of gap size and secondary caries. Caries Res. 2007;41:467–73.
Diercke K, Lussi A, Kersten T, et al. Isolated development of inner (wall) caries like lesions in a bacterial-based in vitro model. Clin Oral Investig. 2009;13:439–44.
Thomas RZ, Ruben JL, ten Bosch JJ, et al. Approximal secondary caries lesion progression, a 20-week in situ study. Caries Res. 2007;41:399–405.
Rezwani-Kaminski T, Kamann W, Gaengler P. Secondary caries susceptibility of teeth with long-term performing composite restorations. J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29:1131–8.
Frankenberger R, Tay FR. Self-etch vs etch-and-rinse adhesives: effect of thermo-mechanical fatigue loading on marginal quality of bonded resin composite restorations. Dent Mater. 2005;21:397–412.
Campos PE, Barceleiro MO, Sampaio-Filho HR. Evaluation of the cervical integrity during occlusal loading of class II restorations. Oper Dent. 2008;33:59–64.
Aggarwal V, Logani A, Jain V, et al. Effect of cyclic loading on marginal adaptation and bond strength in direct vs. indirect class II MO composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2008;33:587–92.
Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, et al. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent. 2004;29:481–508.
Heintze SD, Rousson V. Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations—a meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2012;14:407–31.
Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA, et al. 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res. 2010;89:1063–7.
Mjör IA. Clinical diagnosis of recurrent caries. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005;136:1426–33.
Rasines Alcaraz MG, Vietz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, et al. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;3, CD005620.
Chauhan R. Good short-term survival rates for posterior resin composite restorations. Evid Based Dent. 2015;16:114–5.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by UBC Start-Up funds.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Ricardo M. Carvalho and Adriana P. Manso declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Dental Restorative Materials
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carvalho, R.M., Manso, A.P. Biodegradation of Resin-Dentin Bonds: a Clinical Problem?. Curr Oral Health Rep 3, 229–233 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40496-016-0104-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40496-016-0104-0