Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

In vivo interfacial adaptation of class II resin composite restorations with and without a flowable resin composite liner

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate in vivo the interfacial adaptation of class II resin composite restorations with and without a flowable liner. In 24 premolars scheduled to be extracted after 1 month, 48 box-shaped, enamel-bordered class II cavities were prepared and restored with a flowable liner (FRC, Tetric Flow/Tetric Ceram/Syntac Single-Component) or without (TRC), cured with three different curing modes: soft start and 500- or 700-mW/cm2 continuous irradiation. Interfacial adaptation was evaluated by quantitative scanning electron microscopic analysis using replica method. Gap-free adaptation in the cervical enamel (CE) was observed for FRC and TRC in 96.2 and 90.2%, for the dentin (D) in 63.6 and 64.9%, and for occlusal enamel (OE) in 99.7 and 99.5%, respectively. The difference between the two restorations was not statistically significant (ns). Significant better adaptation was observed for OE than CE and D (p<0.01), and for CE than D (p<0.01). Gap-free adaptation with the soft-start and 500- and 700-mW/cm2 continuous-curing modes was observed for CE: 88.7%, 92.7%, 97.9% (ns); OE: 99.8%, 98.7%, 100% (ns); and D: 64.0%, 63.9%, and 64.6% (ns), respectively. It can be concluded that neither the use of flowable resin composite liner nor the curing mode used influenced the interfacial adaptation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Davidson CL, Feilzer AJ (1997) Polymerization shrinkage and polymerization shrinkage stress in polymer-based restoratives. J Dent 25:435–440

    Google Scholar 

  2. Venhoven BAM, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL (1993) Polymerization contraction and conversion of light-curing BisGMA-based methacrylate resins. Biomaterials 14:871–875

    Google Scholar 

  3. Feilzer AJ, Dooren LH, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL (1995) Influence of light intensity on polymerization shrinkage and integrity of restoration–cavity interface. Eur J Oral Sci 103:322–326

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lindberg A, van Dijken JWV, Hörstedt P (2000) Interfacial adaptation of a Class II polyacid-modified resin composite/resin composite laminate restoration in vivo. Acta Odontol Scand 58:77–84

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brännström M (1984) Communication between the oral cavity and the dental pulp associated with restorative treatment. Oper Dent 9:57–68

    Google Scholar 

  6. Knibbs P (1992) The clinical performance of a glass polyalkenoate (glass ionomer) cement used in a “sandwich” technique with a composite resin to restore Class II cavities. Br Dent J 172:102–107

    Google Scholar 

  7. Davidson CL (1994) Glass ionomer bases under posterior composites. J Esthet Dent 6:223–224

    Google Scholar 

  8. van Dijken JWV (1994) A 6-year evaluation of a direct composite resin inlay/onlay system and glass ionomer cement–composite resin sandwich restorations. Acta Odontol Scand 52:368–376

    Google Scholar 

  9. Welbury RR, Murray JJ (1990) A clinical trial of the glass ionomer cement–composite resin “sandwich” technique in class II cavities in permanent premolar and molar teeth. Quintessence Int 21:507–512

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dietrich T, Kraemer M, Lösche GM, Wernecke K-D, Roulet J-F (2000) Influence of dentin conditioning and contamination on the marginal integrity of sandwich Class II restorations. Oper Dent 25:401–410

    Google Scholar 

  11. Uno S, Asmussen E (1991) Marginal adaptation of a restorative resin polymerized at reduced rate. Scand J Dent Res 99:440–444

    Google Scholar 

  12. Goracci G, Mori G, Casa de Matinis L (1996) Curing light intensity and marginal leakage of resin composite restorations. Quintessence Int 27:355–362

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kanca J, Suh BI (1999) Pulse activation: reducing resin-based composite contraction stresses at the enamel cavosurface margins. Am J Dent 12:107–112

    Google Scholar 

  14. Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E (2002) Composite restorations: influence of flowable and self-curing resin composite linings on microleakage in vitro. Oper Dent 27:569–575

    Google Scholar 

  15. Asmussen E (1982) Restorative resins: hardness and strength vs quantity of remaining double bonds. Scand J Dent Res 90:484–489

    Google Scholar 

  16. Caughman WF, Caughman GB, Shiflett RA, Rueggeberg F, Schuster GS (1991) Correlation of cytotoxicity, filler loading and curing time of dental composites. Biomaterials 12:737–740

    Google Scholar 

  17. Prati C (1989) Early marginal microleakage in Class II resin composite restorations. Dent Mater 5:392–398

    Google Scholar 

  18. Andersson-Wenckert IE, van Dijken JWV, Kieri C (2004) Durability of extensive Class II open-sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement after 6 years. Am J Dent 17:43–50

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL (1990) Complete marginal seal of Class V resin composite restorations effected by increased flexibility. J Dent Res 69:1240–1243

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift EJ Jr, Stamatiades P, Wilkerson M (1998) A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc 129:567–577

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Labella R, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G (1999) Polymerization shrinkage and elasticity of flowable composites and filled adhesives. Dent Mater 15:128–137

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Estafan D, Estafan A, Leinfelder KF (2000) Cavity wall adaptation of resin-based composite lined with flowable composites. Am J Dent 13:192–194

    Google Scholar 

  23. Belli S, Inokoshi S, Özer F, Pereira PN, Ogata M, Tagami J (2001) The effect of additional enamel etching and a flowable composite to the interfacial integrity of Class II adhesive composite restorations. Oper Dent 26:70–75

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jain P, Belcher M (2000) Microleakage of Class II resin-based composite restorations with flowable composite in the proximal box. Am J Dent 13:235–238

    Google Scholar 

  25. Chuang SF, Lie JK, Jin YT (2001) Microleakage and internal voids in Class II composite restorations with flowable composite linings. Oper Dent 26:193–200

    Google Scholar 

  26. Beznos C (2001) Microleakage at the cervical margin of composite Class II cavities with different restorative techniques. Oper Dent 26:60–69

    Google Scholar 

  27. Poonam J, Belcher M (2000) Microleakage of Class II resin-based composite restorations with flowable composite in the proximal box. Am J Dent 13:235–238

    Google Scholar 

  28. van Dijken JWV, Hörstedt P, Waern R (1998) Directed polymerization shrinkage versus a horizontal incremental filling technique. Interfacial adaptation in vivo in class II cavities. Am J Dent 11:165–172

    Google Scholar 

  29. Roulet JF, Reich T, Blunck U, Noack M (1989) Quantitative margin analysis in the scanning electron microscope. Scanning Microsc 3:147–158

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sjödin L, Uusitalo M, van Dijken JWV (1996) Resin modified glass ionomer cements. In vitro microleakage in class II sandwich- and direct class V fillings. Swed Dent J 20:77–86

    Google Scholar 

  31. Perdigão J, Lambrechts P, van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G, Lopes ALB (1995) Field emission SEM comparison of four postfixation drying techniques for human dentin. J Biomed Mater Res 29:1111–1120

    Google Scholar 

  32. Grundy JR (1971) An intra-oral replica technique for use with the scanning electron microscope. Br Dent J 130:113–117

    Google Scholar 

  33. van Dijken JWV (1999) Multiple versus one-bottle bonding systems. Réal Clin 10:199–222

    Google Scholar 

  34. van Dijken JWV, Hörstedt P (1987) Effect of the use of rubberdam on marginal adaptation of composite fillings placed with the acid etch technique. Acta Odontol Scand 45:303–308

    Google Scholar 

  35. Vargas MA, Cobb DS, Deneby GE (1997) Interfacial micromorphology and shear bond strength of single-bottle primer/adhesives. Dent Mater 13:316–324

    Google Scholar 

  36. Manhart J, Chen HY, Mehl A, Weber K, Hickel R (2001) Marginal quality and microleakage of adhesive class V restorations. J Dent 29:123–130

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sunnegardh-Gronberg K, van Dijken JWV, Lindberg A, Horstedt P (2004) Interfacial adaptation of a calcium aluminate cement used in class II cavities, in vivo. Clin Oral Invest 8:75–80

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ernst CP, Cortain G, Spohn M, Rippin G, Willershausen B (2002) Marginal integrity of different resin-based composites for posterior teeth: an in vitro dye-penetration study on eight resin–composite and compomer–/adhesive combinations with a particular look at the additional use of flow-composites. Dent Mater 18:351–358

    Google Scholar 

  39. Chuang SF, Liu JK, Chao CC, Liao FP, Chen YH (2001) Effects of flowable composite lining and operator experience on microleakage and internal voids in class II composite restorations. J Prosthet Dent 85:177–183

    Google Scholar 

  40. Chuang SF, Jin YT, Liu JK, Chang CH, Shieh DB (2004) Influence of flowable composite lining thickness on Class II composite restorations. Oper Dent 29:301–308

    Google Scholar 

  41. Jackson RD, Morgan M (2000) The new posterior resins and a simplified placement technique. J Am Dent Assoc 131:375–383

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ernst CP, Canbek K, Aksogan K, Willershausen B 2003 Two-year clinical performance of a packable posterior composite with and without a flowable composite liner. Clin Oral Investig 7:129–134

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sahafi A, Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E (2001) Soft-start polymerization and marginal gap formation in vitro. Am J Dent 14:145–147

    Google Scholar 

  44. Amaral CM, Peris AR, Ambrosano GM, Pimenta LA (2004) Microleakage and gap formation of resin composite restorations polymerized with different techniques. Am J Dent 17:156–160

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported in part by the County Council of Västerbotten and the Swedish Dental Society. We are grateful for the supply of the curing units and the resin composite material by the manufacturers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Public Dental Health Clinic, Seminariegatan 3, 931 33, Skellefteå, Sweden

    Anders Lindberg

  2. Dental Hygienist Education, Department of Odontology, Dental School, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

    Anders Lindberg & J. W. V. van Dijken

  3. Unit of Electron Microscopy, Department of Medical Biosciences, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

    P. Hörstedt

Authors
  1. Anders Lindberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. W. V. van Dijken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Hörstedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anders Lindberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lindberg, A., van Dijken, J.W.V. & Hörstedt, P. In vivo interfacial adaptation of class II resin composite restorations with and without a flowable resin composite liner. Clin Oral Invest 9, 77–83 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0311-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0311-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation