Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Marginal and internal adaptation of Class II ormocer and hybrid resin composite restorations before and after load cycling

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

Abstract

To overcome the shortcomings of the conventional composite restorative materials, ormocer materials have been introduced over the past few years. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the marginal and internal adaptation of two ormocer restorative systems (Admira, Voco and Definite, Degussa) compared to a hybrid composite one (TPH Spectrum, Dentsply/ DeTrey), before and after load cycling in Class II restorations. Standardized Class II restorations with cervical margins on enamel were divided into three groups (n=16). Teeth of each group were filled with one of the restoratives tested and its respective bonding agent. Each group was divided into two equal subgroups. The marginal and internal adaptation of the first subgroup was evaluated after 7-day water storage at room temperature and of the second after cyclic loading in a mastication simulator (1.2×106 cycles, 49 N, 1.6 Hz). The occlusal and cervical marginal evaluation was conducted by videomicroscope and ranked as “excellent” and “not excellent”. One thin section (150 μm), in mesial-distal direction, of each restoration, was examined under metallographic microscope to determine the quality of internal adaptation. The occlusal and cervical adaptation of both ormocer restorative systems was similar and clearly worse compared with the hybrid composite restorative one before as well as after load cycling. Concerning internal adaptation, no gap-free ormocer restorations were detected, whereas all Spectrum restorations presented perfect adaptation. The bonding agents of the ormocers formed layers with unacceptable features (pores, fractures) whereas that of the hybrid composite achieved perfect bonding layer even after loading. The rheological characteristics of the bonding agents of the ormocer restorative systems are proposed to be responsible for their inferior marginal and internal quality in Class II restorations compared with the hybrid composite one.

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
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Dental Association, ADA (1996) Acceptance program guidelines—restorative materials. 1–10

  2. Abe Y, Lambrechts P, Inoue S, Braem MJ, Takeuchi M, Vanherle G, Van Meerbeek B (2001) Dynamic elastic modulus of ‘packable’ composites. Dent Mater 17:520–525

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Armstrong SR, Keller JC, Boyer DB (2001) The influence of water storage and C-factor on the dentin-resin composite microtensile bond strength and debond pathway utilizing a filled and unfilled adhesive resin. Dent Mater 17:268–276

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ausiello P, Apicella A, Davidson CL (2002) Effect of adhesive layer properties on stress distribution in composite restorations—a 3D finite element analysis. Dent Mater 18:295–303

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen HY, Manhart J, Hickel R, Kunzelmann KH (2001) Polymerization contraction stress in light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater 17:253–259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Choi KK, Condon JR, Ferracane JL (2000) The effects of adhesive thickness on polymerization contraction stress of composite. J Dent Res 79:812–817

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Civelek A, Ersoy M, L’Hotelier E, Soyman M, Say EC (2003) Polymerization shrinkage and microleakage in Class II cavities of various resin composites. Oper Dent 28:635–641

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Davidson CL, de Gee AJ (1984) Relaxation of polymerization contraction stresses by flow in dental composites. J Dent Res 63:146–148

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dietschi D, Bindi G, Krejci I, Davidson C (2002) Marginal and internal adaptation of stratified compomer-composite Class II restorations. Oper Dent 27:500–509

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Eliades G (1994) Clinical relevance of the formulation and testing of dentine bonding systems. J Dent 22:73–81

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Frankenberger R, Lopes M, Perdigao J, Ambrose WW, Rosa BT (2002) The use of flowable composites as filled adhesives. Dent Mater 18:227–238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gregoire GL, Akon BA, Millas A (2002) Interfacial micromorphological differences in hybrid layer formation between water- and solvent-based dentin bonding systems. J Prosthet Dent 87:633–641

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hickel R, Manhart J (2001) Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 3:45–64

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hofmann N, Denner W, Hugo B, Klaiber B (2003) The influence of plasma arc vs. halogen standard or soft-start irradiation on polymerization shrinkage kinetics of polymer matrix composites. J Dent 31:383–393

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jung YG, Peterson IM, Kim DK, Lawn BR (2000) Lifetime-limiting strength degradation from contact fatigue in dental ceramics. J Dent Res 79:722–731

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 

  17. Kern M, Strub JR, Lu XY (1999) Wear of composite resin veneering materials in a dual-axis chewing simulator. J Oral Rehabil 26:372–378

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Krejci I, Reich T, Lutz F, Albertoni M (1990) [An in vitro test procedure for evaluating dental restoration systems. 1. A computer-controlled mastication simulator]. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 100:953–960

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lopes LG, Cefaly DF, Franco EB, Mondelli RF, Lauris JR, Navarro MF (2003) Clinical evaluation of two “packable” posterior composite resins: two-year results. Clin Oral Invest 7:123–128

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Chen HY, Hickel R (2000) Mechanical properties and wear behavior of light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater 16:33–40

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Chen HY, Hickel R (2000) Mechanical properties of new composite restorative materials. J Biomed Mat Res 53:353–361

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Manhart J, Chen HY, Hickel R (2001) The suitability of packable resin-based composites for posterior restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 132:639–645

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Manhart J, Chen HY, Spoerlein F, Hickel R (2002) 2-year clinical evaluation of Definite ormocer-restorations in posterior teeth. J Dent Res 81:439

    Google Scholar 

  24. McCoy RB, Anderson MH, Lepe X, Johnson GH (1998) Clinical success of class V composite resin restorations without mechanical retention. J Am Dent Assoc 129:593–599

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Miyazaki M, Ando S, Hinoura K, Onose H, Moore BK (1995) Influence of filler addition to bonding agents on shear bond strength to bovine dentin. Dent Mater 11:234–238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Oberlander H, Hiller KA, Thonemann B, Schmalz G (2001) Clinical evaluation of packable composite resins in Class-II restorations. Clin Oral Invest 5:102–107

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Pashley DH, Sano H, Ciucchi B, Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM (1995) Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents: a review. Dent Mater 11:117–125

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Perdigao J (1995) An ultra-morphological study of human dentine exposed to adhesive systems. Thesis. Van Der Poorten, Leuven, Belgium

  29. Peutzfeldt A (1997) Resin composites in dentistry: the monomer systems. Eur J Oral Sci 105:97–116

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Qvist V (1993) Resin restorations: leakage, bacteria, pulp. Endod Dent Traumatol 9:127–152

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rahiotis C (2002) Study of the influence of visible light curing units on setting reaction of one visible light resin composite. Thesis, Dental School, University of Athens

  32. Retief DH (1994) Do adhesives prevent microleakage? Int Dent J 44:19–26

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rosin M, Steffen H, Konschake C, Greese U, Teichmann D, Hartmann A, Meyer G (2003) One-year evaluation of an Ormocer restorative—a multipractice clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 7:20–26

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Roulet JF (1994) Marginal integrity: clinical significance. J Dent 22[Suppl 1]: S9–S12

  35. Roulet JF (1997) Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alternatives to amalgam. J Dent 25:459–473

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ruyter IE (1981) Unpolymerized surface layers on sealants. Acta Odontol Scand 39:27–32

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sanares AM, Itthagarun A, King NM, Tay FR, Pashley DH (2001) Adverse surface interactions between one-bottle light-cured adhesives and chemical-cured composites. Dent Mater 17:542–556

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Stoll R, Kook K, Kunzelmann KH, Zofel P, Stachniss V (2000) Influence of a high-speed polymerization method on the marginal integrity of composite fillings in Class-II cavities. Clin Oral Investig 4:42–49

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Swift EJ Jr, Perdigao J, Wilder AD Jr, Heymann HO, Sturdevant JR, Bayne SC (2001) Clinical evaluation of two one-bottle dentin adhesives at three years. J Am Dent Assoc 132:1117–1123

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Tanumiharja M, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ (2000) Microtensile bond strengths of seven dentin adhesive systems. Dent Mater 16:180–187

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Turkun SL (2003) Clinical evaluation of a self-etching and a one-bottle adhesive system at two years. J Dent 31:527–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Uhl A, Mills RW, Vowles RW, Jandt KD (2002) Knoop hardness depth profiles and compressive strength of selected dental composites polymerized with halogen and LED light curing technologies. J Biomed Mat Res 63:729–738

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Van Meerbeek B, Willems G, Celis JP, Roos JR, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (1993) Assessment by nano-indentation of the hardness and elasticity of the resin-dentin bonding area. J Dent Res 72:1434–1442

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Van Meerbeek B, Perdigao J, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (1998) The clinical performance of adhesives. J Dent 26:1–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Van Meerbeek B, Vargas M, Inoue S, Yoshida Y, Perdigao J, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (2000) Microscopy investigations. Techniques, results, limitations. Am J Dent 13:3D–18D

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Wassell RW, McCabe JF, Walls AW (1994) A two-body frictional wear test. J Dent Res 73:1546–1553

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Wolter H (1994) Dental filling materials (posterior composites) based on inorganic/organic copolymers (ORMOCERs). MACRO ACRON 35:503

    Google Scholar 

  48. Wolter H (1994) New Inorganic/organic copolymers (ORMOCERs) for dental applications. Mat Res Soc Symp Proc 346:143–149

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Yap AU, Shah KC, Chew CL (2003) Marginal gap formation of composites in dentine: effect of water storage. J Oral Rehabil 30:236–242

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthodontics Section of Medical Materials and Technology, Clinic for Dental, Oral, and Maxillary Medicine, University Hospital Tuebingen, Osianderstrasse 2-8, 72076 , Tuebingen, Germany

    N. Kournetas & J. Geis-Gerstorfer

  2. Department of Operative , Faculty of Dentistry, University of Athens, Greece

    M. Chakmakchi, A. Kakaboura & C. Rahiotis

Authors
  1. N. Kournetas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Chakmakchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Kakaboura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Rahiotis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. Geis-Gerstorfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Geis-Gerstorfer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kournetas, N., Chakmakchi, M., Kakaboura, A. et al. Marginal and internal adaptation of Class II ormocer and hybrid resin composite restorations before and after load cycling. Clin Oral Invest 8, 123–129 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-004-0274-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-004-0274-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation