Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 455
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 264-271

Effect of cyclic loading on microleakage of silorane based composite compared with low shrinkage methacrylate-based composites


1 Department of Operative Dentistry, Dental Research Center, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, KermanDepartment of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

Date of Web Publication10-May-2016

Correspondence Address:
Razieh Hoseinifar
Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Shafa Street, Kerman
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.182188

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Background: There are many concerns regarding the marginal seal of composite restorations, especially when composite restorations are subjected to cyclic loading. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of cyclic loading on the microleakage of silorane based composite compared with low shrinkage methacrylate-based composites in class V cavities.
Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, class V cavities were prepared on the facial and lingual surfaces of 48 human premolars (96 cavities). The teeth were randomly divided into four groups of 12 teeth (24 cavities) each and restored as follows: Group 1 (Siloran System Adhesive + Filtek P90), Group 2 (All Bond SE + Aelite LS Posterior), Group 3 (Futurabond NR + Grandio), and Group 4 (G-Bond + Kalore-GC). All the specimens were thermocycled for 2000 cycles (5-55°C) and then half of the specimens from each group, were Load cycled. All teeth were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsine dye, sectioned, and observed under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using Wilcoxon test, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney U-tests. P < 0.05 was considered as significant.
Results: In both unloaded and loaded groups, no statistically significant differences were observed among four composites at the occlusal margin, but a significant difference in gingival microleakage was found between Aelite and silorane. Occlusal and gingival microleakage was not affected by cyclic loading in none of the four restorative materials.
Conclusion: Silorane did not provide better marginal seal than the low shrinkage methacrylate-based composites (except Aelite). In addition, cyclic loading did not affect the marginal microleakage of evaluated composite restorations .

Keywords: Composite resins, dental leakage, polymerization, silorane resins


How to cite this article:
Kermanshah H, Yasini E, Hoseinifar R. Effect of cyclic loading on microleakage of silorane based composite compared with low shrinkage methacrylate-based composites. Dent Res J 2016;13:264-71

How to cite this URL:
Kermanshah H, Yasini E, Hoseinifar R. Effect of cyclic loading on microleakage of silorane based composite compared with low shrinkage methacrylate-based composites. Dent Res J [serial online] 2016 [cited 2019 Oct 18];13:264-71. Available from: http://www.drjjournal.net/text.asp?2016/13/3/264/182188


  Introduction Top


Although resin composite materials have improved considerably since their introduction, their polymerization shrinkage remains a problem. This shrinkage could cause tensile stress and consequent debonding at the tooth-composite interface, which may lead to recurrent caries, postoperative sensitivity, and microleakage. [1] Several approaches have been proposed to minimize the polymerization shrinkage, such as using an initial low-intensity curing light exposure, incremental placement technique, and applying an intermediate low elastic modulus liner. [1],[2] Use of low-shrinkage composites is one of the other approaches to control polymerization contraction stress.

Silorane, a new class of ring-opening monomers, is derived from the combination of Oxiranes and Siloxanes, combining the properties of both, such as hydrophobicity, biocompatibility and low shrinkage. [3] Previous studies have indicated better enamel and dentin marginal integrity of silorane compared to methacrylate-based composites, [3],[4],[5] while others reported that silorane did not provide better marginal integrity than the methacrylate-based composites. [6],[7]

Other resin composites (Kalore GC, Grandio and Aelite LS Posterior) used in this study was low shrinkage methacrylate-based composites.

Weakening of the adhesive resin due to cyclic loading is an important issue in restorative dentistry. Some studies reported increased microleakage of the composite restorations under cyclic loading [8],[9] while others indicated that cyclic loading did not affect the microleakage and marginal integrity of composite restorations. [10],[11]

Scanning electron microscopic (SEM) evaluation is the gold standard for determination of microleakage in indirect and directly placed adhesive restorations. SEM-investigation on marginal adaptation of class V cavities might be performed easier because of the smaller size of the cavity and is therefore used more commonly. [12]

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the effect of cyclic loading on the microleakage of silorane based composite compared with low shrinkage methacrylate-based composites in class V cavities.


  Materials and methods Top


In this experimental study 48 extracted intact human maxillary premolars, without caries, cracks or previous restorations were used. The teeth were immersed in 0.5% chloramine T at 4°C for 1 week and then stored in physiologic normal saline solution until use.

Class V cavities (occluso-gingival length of 3 mm, the mesiodistal width of 3 mm, and 1 mm dentinal depth) were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of the teeth using tapered fissure diamond bur (Tizkavan, Tehran, Iran) with water-cooled high-speed handpiece.

A 0.5 mm, 45°C bevel was placed on the enamel margins using a flame-shaped diamond bur (Diatech Dental AG) while gingival margins were prepared at 90°C with the external surface.

A new bur was used for every five preparations. The gingival margins were 1 mm beneath the cementoenamel junction on dentin. The occlusal margins were located on enamel. The prepared teeth were randomly divided into four groups of 12 teeth each (24 cavities).

Materials used in this study with their chemical compositions are listed in [Table 1].
Table 1: Materials used in this study and their chemical composition

Click here to view


In all groups, 37% phosphoric acid gel (Total Etch, Ivoclar Vivadent) was applied to the enamel part of the cavity for 15 s, rinsed for 15 s and excess water was removed with a light air stream to achieve a moist surface and then restored as follows:

  • Group 1 (Siloran System Adhesive + Filtek P90): The Silorane Self Ecth Primer (3M ESPE, Dental Product, ST Paul, USA) was applied and agitated on dentinal surfaces of cavity for 15 s, gently air-dried, light-cured for 20 s using a LED light-curing unit (Guilin Woodpecker Medical Instrument Co., China) at 900 mW/cm 2 intensity, as checked with a radiometer (LED Radiometer Demetron, Kerr, USA) after every 10 uses, and the silorane bond was then applied on all surfaces of cavity followed by a gentle stream of air, and cured for 20 s. Then each cavity was filled with Filtek P90 A3.5 shade composite (3M ESPE, Dental Product, ST Paul, USA). In all groups, the cavities were filled in three increments: The first increment on the axial wall, the second increment was placed from about the midpoint of the gingival wall to the occlusal cavosurface margin and the third increment filled the remaining of preparation, and each increment was cured for 40 s
  • Group 2 (All Bond SE + Aelite LS Posterior): All Bond SE (Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, USA) was applied and agitated for 10 s, gently air dried for 5 s and then air dried with greater pressure completely. Another layer of bonding was applied and the process was repeated again and light cured for 20 s. Then each cavity was filled with three layers of Aelite LS Posterior A3.5 shade composite (Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, USA) and each increment was cured for 40 s
  • Group 3 (Futurabond NR + Grandio): A moderately thin layer of Futurabond NR (Voco Cuxhaven, Germany) was applied for 20 s and air dried for 10 s. Another layer of bonding was applied and the process was repeated again and light cured for 20 s. Then each cavity was filled with three layers of Grandio A3.5 shade composite (Voco Cuxhaven, Germany) and each increment was cured for 40 s
  • Group 4 (G-Bond + Kalore-GC): G-Bond (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) was applied and left undisturbed for 10 s. Then air dried for 5 s. Another layer of G-bond was applied and the process was repeated again and light cured for 20 s. Then each cavity was filled with three layers of Kalore-GC A3.5 shade composite (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) and each increment was cured for 40 s.


All specimens were finished using fine-grit finishing diamond burs (Diatech Dental AG, Heerbrug, Switzerland) and polished with sequential disks (OptiDisk, Kerr, USA) (15 s in each margin).

After storage in an incubator (Malek-Teb, Iran) at 37°C for 24 h, all teeth were subjected to 2000 thermal cycles of 5°C/55°C, with a dwell time of 30 s in each bath and a transfer time of 10 s (Malek-Teb, Iran).

Then in each group, half of the teeth (n = 6) were stored in an incubator at 37°C and the others were load cycled (Germany, SD Mekanotronik), as follows: Initially, a cylindrical tube was coated with a layer of wax, then the teeth were mounted up to 1 mm apical to the gingival margin of the restoration in autopolymerized acrylic resin (Acropars, Iran) at the middle and parallel to walls of the tube. Then the specimens were subjected to 200,000 axial cycles of loading at 80 N, a frequency of 2 Hz and a displacement of 1 mm.

Field emission-scanning electron microscopic replicas preparation

Before sectioning the teeth, an impression from the surface of the restoration (Precise, Coltene, Switzerland) was taken of 32 specimens (4 randomly selected restorations in each subgroup) and positive epoxy resin replica of each specimen (Epo-thin, Buehler Ltd., Lake Bluff, IL, USA) was obtained. Each resin replica was mounted on a metallic stub, sputter - coated with a thin layer of gold and examined under a field emission-SEM (FE-SEM) (Hitachi S-4160, Japan) with ×1000 magnification and interfacial gaps were measured [Figure 1]. The whole length of the gaps was expressed as a percentage of the length of the total restoration margins (enamel and dentin margins).
Figure 1: Scanning electron microscopic micrograph of resin-dentin interface of unloaded groups (Silorane (a), Aelite (b), Grandio (c), Kalore-GC (d)) and loaded groups (Silorane (e), Aelite (f), Grandio (g), Kalore-GC (h)).

Click here to view


Microleakage evaluation

After SEM replicas preparation, the root apices of the teeth were sealed with sticky wax, and all surfaces of the teeth were covered with two coats of nail polish except for 1 mm around the margins of each restoration. All specimens were then immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsine dye for 24 h at 37°C, washed thoroughly with distilled water, air dried and embedded in acrylic resin.

All teeth were then sectioned into two halves longitudinally from buccal to lingual surface through the center of the restored area using a low-speed diamond disk mounted in a cutting machine (Presi, Mecatome, T201A, France) under constant water irrigation.

Dye penetration at the occlusal and gingival margins was blindly assessed in the two halves by two independent investigators using a stereomicroscope (Nikon 800, Tokyo, Japan) at ×10 and ×40 magnifications; if the dye penetration score on the two halves was different, the half that showed more microleakage was selected for assessment. The degree of microleakage was scored according to the following criteria: [13]

0. No dye penetration.

1. Dye penetration up to one-half of the occlusal or gingival wall.

2. Dye penetration greater than one-half of the occlusal or gingival wall, but not reaching the axial wall.

3. Dye penetration along the axial wall.

The Kruskal-Wallis test, Dunn procedure, and Mann-Whitney U-test were used for statistical analysis of the data. The difference between the occlusal and gingival dye penetration scores of each specimen was analyzed by the Wilcoxon test and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


  Results Top


Results of occlusal and gingival microleakage are shown in [Table 2].
Table 2: Microleakage score in each margin according to the tested composite and cyclic loading

Click here to view


No statistically significant differences were observed between the microleakage of unloaded and loaded groups on both occlusal and gingival margins in all materials (P > 0.05).

In both unloaded and loaded groups, occlusal microleakage among four composites was not significantly different (P = 0.092, P = 1, respectively). However, at the gingival margin, Aelite showed significantly higher microleakage than silorane restorations (P = 0.03, P = 0.005, respectively), and no significant differences were detected between the other groups (P > 0.05).

When comparing the microleakage between occlusal and gingival margins in each group, there were significantly more dye penetration at the gingival margin than the occlusal margin in all the tested groups (P < 0.05), except unloaded and loaded silorane groups (P = 0.19, P = 0.18, respectively).

[Table 3] summarizes the interfacial gap formation observed by FE-SEM. Due to the limited sample size (n = 32), the statistical analysis of the data was not performed.
Table 3: Results of interfacial gap formation observed by field emission scanning electron microscopy

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


The main cause for the clinical failure of composite restoration is marginal leakage along the tooth-restoration interface. [14]

The resin composites used in this study were low-shrinkage composites. Kalore is a nano-hybrid resin composite with the filler content of 82% by weight. This resin composite is based on Dupont technology, which contains a DX511 molecule in its matrix. The DuPont molecule, DX-511, is a urethane dimethacrylate monomer with a low number of C = C double bonds that is compatible with the current bonding systems and composites. The molecular weight of DX-511 is 895 which is twice that of UDMA or Bis-GMA. The low polymerization shrinkage of Kalore (1.7%) is due to the presence of a low number of C = C double bonds and high molecular weight of DX511. [15],[16]

Aelite LS posterior is a highly filled hybrid resin composite (74% by volume and 88.5% by weight), and its low polymerization shrinkage is due to its high filler content (1.39%). [17] Grandio is a highly filled nanohybrid resin composite (71.4% by volume and 87% by weight). Its nanostructure reduces its polymerization shrinkage (1.57%). [3]

Margin effect

In this study, gingival microleakage in Kalore, Grandio and Aelite (in both unloaded and loaded groups) were significantly higher than occlusal margins; this finding was in agreement with the previous studies that indicated less microleakage at the occlusal margin than gingival margin. [11],[13],[18] This was expected as dentin is a less favorable bonding substrate, due to its lower inorganic material (<50%), higher water content (21%), and its tubular structure. [19] Moreover, in the current study enamel margins were etched with 37% phosphoric acid before applying self-etch adhesives. Different studies reported better marginal integrity of self-etch adhesives when the adhesive was applied following selective etching of enamel with 37% phosphoric acid. [20],[21]

There were no significant differences between the occlusal and gingival microleakage in loaded and unloaded silorane groups. This result is probably due to the low-shrinkage nature of silorane and the fact that at the gingival margin, low polymerization shrinkage stress cannot overcome the adhesive strength. [22] Silorane primer with almost pH of 2.7 provides a mild etching and slight decalcification of the tooth structure and a strong and long lasting bond. [23] Moreover, Mine et al. showed that silorane primer forms a chemical bond with hydroxyapatite crystals. [24] Furthermore, some studies reported the higher microleakage and lower bond strength of one-step self-etch adhesives in comparison with two-step self-etch adhesives. [25],[26] In the current study, the Silorane system adhesive was two-step self-etch, while the other adhesives were one-step self-etch.

Filling material effect

In the current study, no statistically significant differences were observed among four groups at the occlusal margin (in both unloaded and loaded groups), which is in accordance with the results of earlier studies. [18],[27]

There was a statistically significant difference in microleakage between Aelite and silorane at the gingival margin (in both unloaded and loaded groups). This result is in accordance with the result of Boaro et al. that reported the higher microleakage of Aelite compared with the other low shrinkage composites (Heliomollor, Venus Diamond, Filtek Z250 and Silorane). [28] Calherios et al. also reported that the microleakage of class V cavities restored with Aelite LS was higher than that of similar cavities restored with the other low-shrinkage composites. [29] According to Hooke's law, polymerization shrinkage stress is determined by the volumetric shrinkage and viscoelastic properties of the resin composite. [17]

The higher microleakage of Aelite LS is associated with its high elastic modulus and stiffness due to its high filler levels. Its high stiffness offsets its low polymerization shrinkage that results in high-stress values. [29] FE-SEM evaluation also confirmed these results by showing higher percentage of interfacial gaps in the specimens restored with Aelite (in both unloaded and loaded groups). However, due to the inadequate sample size (n = 32), the statistical analysis of the data was not performed.

In the present study, there were no significant differences in microleakage between Silorane, Grandio and Kalore; this finding was in agreement with the results of previous studies reporting that Silorane did not provide better marginal integrity than the methacrylate-based composites. [6],[7] However, Al-Boni et al. reported lower microleakage of Class I cavities restored with Silorane compared with the other composites (Filtek Z250 and Amelogen Plus). [30] Joseph et al. also reported that the microleakage of Class II cavities filled with Filtek Silorane was significantly lower than that of similar cavities filled with methacrylate-based composites. [4] These differences in studies may be explained by differences in resin composites and bonding type, microleakage scores, and cavity type. It may also be related to the formation of an oxygen inhibition layer due to the curing of Silorane primer prior to the application of bonding agent. This layer is formed between the cured primer and the Silorane bond and can be observed in micro-Raman spectroscopy as the intermediate zone of approximately 1 μm; which may be the weakest zone of Silorane adhesives (but it is controversial). [31]

Cyclic loading effect

In the current study, occlusal and gingival microleakage of all the tested materials was not affected by cyclic loading. This finding was in agreement with the results of previous studies, [10],[11],[32] although some studies showed increased microleakage of composite restorations under cyclic loading. [1],[8],[9] Campos et al. evaluated the microleakage of a condensable composite (Surefil) after cyclic loading using 4000 cycles and 150-newton forces and reported that the effect of cyclic loading on gingival and occlusal microleakage was statistically significant. [8] Erdilek et al. also evaluated the microleakage of Spectrum TPH and Admira Ormocer after cyclic loading using 50,000 cycles and 50-newton forces and reported that the cyclic loading significantly increased microleakage for both the materials at the gingival margin. [9]

It seems that the properties of a resin composite, rather than marginal adhesion are considered as the most influential factor on its resistance to marginal degradation. [33] The resin composites used in this study were low-shrinkage composites. It is hypothesized that, since low-shrinkage composites provide lower polymerization stress, they would be able to withstand fatigue at the interface better than the other composites. [1]

Another possible explanation is the use of composites with nanofiller content (grandio and kalore are nanohybrid composites). Cyclic loading leads to a decrease in bonding performance due to fatigue at the adhesive interface. [5] Some studies reported that nanocomposites with higher compressive strength also had higher fatigue limits. [34],[35]

Moreover, Grandio and Aelite contain spherical filler particles that have been associated with reduced stress concentration during loading compared with the sharp edges present within irregular-shaped fillers. Irregular-shaped fillers may act as a defect center promoting the accumulation of stress-induced damage. [36]


  Conclusion Top


Under the limitations of the present study, silorane did not provide better marginal seal than the low shrinkage methacrylate-based composites (except Aelite). Cyclic loading did not increase the microleakage of evaluated composite restorations.

Financial support and sponsorship

The present study was financially supported by Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Conflicts of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare that they have no conflicts of interest, real or perceived, financial or non-financial in this article.

 
  References Top

1.
Yamazaki PC, Bedran-Russo AK, Pereira PN, Wsift EJ Jr. Microleakage evaluation of a new low-shrinkage composite restorative material. Oper Dent 2006;31:670-6.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
D′Alpino PH, Bechtold J, dos Santos PJ, Alonso RC, Di Hipólito V, Silikas N, et al. Methacrylate- and silorane-based composite restorations: Hardness, depth of cure and interfacial gap formation as a function of the energy dose. Dent Mater 2011;27:1162-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Bagis YH, Baltacioglu IH, Kahyaogullari S. Comparing microleakage and the layering methods of silorane-based resin composite in wide class II MOD cavities. Oper Dent 2009;34:578-85.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Joseph A, Santhosh L, Hegde J, Panchajanya S, George R. Microleakage evaluation of Silorane-based composite and methacrylate-based composite in class II box preparations using two different layering techniques: An in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2013;24:148.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Krifka S, Federlin M, Hiller KA, Schmalz G. Microleakage of silorane- and methacrylate-based class V composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:1117-24.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Umer F, Naz F, Khan FR. An in vitro evaluation of microleakage in class V preparations restored with hybrid versus silorane composites. J Conserv Dent 2011;14:103-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
7.
Schmidt M, Kirkevang LL, Hørsted-Bindslev P, Poulsen S. Marginal adaptation of a low-shrinkage silorane-based composite: 1-year randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2011;15:291-5.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Campos PE, Sampaio Filho HR, Barceleiro Mde O. Occlusal loading evaluation in the cervical integrity of class II cavities filled with composite. Oper Dent 2005;30:727-32.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Erdilek D, Dörter C, Koray F, Kunzelmann KH, Efes BG, Gomec Y. Effect of Thermo-mechanical load cycling on microleakage in class II ormocer restorations. Eur J Dent 2009;3:200-5.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Li H, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. The effect of load cycling on the nanoleakage of dentin bonding systems. Dent Mater 2002;18:111-9.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Schneider LF, Tango RN, Milan FM, Mundstock GV, Consani S, Sinhoreti MA. Microleakage evaluation of composite restorations submitted to load cycling. Braz Dent Sci 2004;7:27-33.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Ernst CP, Galler P, Willershausen B, Haller B. Marginal integrity of class V restorations: SEM versus dye penetration. Dent Mater 2008;24:319-27.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Manhart J, Chen HY, Mehl A, Weber K, Hickel R. Marginal quality and microleakage of adhesive class V restorations. J Dent 2001;29:123-30.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Cardoso MV, de Almeida Neves A, Mine A, Coutinho E, Van Landuyt K, De Munck J, et al. Current aspects on bonding effectiveness and stability in adhesive dentistry. Aust Dent J 2011;56 Suppl 1:31-44.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Tanno K, Hiraishi N, Otsuki M. Evaluation of cavity adaptation of low-shrinkage composite resin. Asian Pac J Dent 2011;11:27-33.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Terry DA, Leinfelder KF, Blatz MB. A comparison of advanced resin monomer technologies. Dent Today 2009;28:122-3.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Klautau EB, Carneiro KK, Lobato MF, Machado SM, Silva e Souza MH Jr. Low shrinkage composite resins: Influence on sealing ability in unfavorable C-factor cavities. Braz Oral Res 2011;25:5-12.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Hegde MN, Vyapaka P, Shetty S. A comparative evaluation of microleakage of three different newer direct composite resins using a self etching primer in class V cavities: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2009;12:160-3.  Back to cited text no. 18
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
19.
Florescu A, Efrem IC, Haidoiu C, Hertzog R, Bîclesanu FC. Microscopic aspects of the hybrid layer formed by the SE 1-step Futurabond M (Voco) adhesive system applied to normal and sclerotic dentin. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2014;55:1395-400.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Five-year clinical effectiveness of a two-step self-etching adhesive. J Adhes Dent 2007;9:7-10.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Brackett MG, Brackett WW, Haisch LD. Microleakage of class V resin composites placed using self-etching resins: Effect of prior enamel etching. Quintessence Int 2006;37:109-13.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Yassini E, Kermanshah H, Mirzaei M, Ranjbar Omidi B. Effect of mechanical load cycling on class V glass-ionomer and composite restorations; a microleakage and scanning electron microscopic evaluation. J Islamic Dent Assoc Iran 2012;24:93-103.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Kikuti WY, Chaves FO, Di Hipólito V, Rodrigues FP, D′Alpino PH. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with different resin-based restorative systems. Braz Oral Res 2012;26:275-81.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Mine A, De Munck J, Van Ende A, Cardoso MV, Kuboki T, Yoshida Y, et al. TEM characterization of a silorane composite bonded to enamel/dentin. Dent Mater 2010;26:524-32.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Sensi LG, Lopes GC, Monteiro S Jr., Baratieri LN, Vieira LC. Dentin bond strength of self-etching primers/adhesives. Oper Dent 2005;30:63-8.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
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.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Pongprueksa P, Kuphasuk W, Senawongse P. Effect of elastic cavity wall and occlusal loading on microleakage and dentin bond strength. Oper Dent 2007;32:466-75.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Boaro L, Gajewski V, Froes N, Braga R, Miranda W. Mircroleakage and polymerization stress of low-shrinkage commercial composites. Available from: http://www.iadr.confex.com/iadr/2011sandiego/web. [Last cited on 2011 Mar  16-19].  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Calheiros FC, Sadek FT, Braga RR, Cardoso PE. Polymerization contraction stress of low-shrinkage composites and its correlation with microleakage in class V restorations. J Dent 2004;32:407-12.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Al-Boni R, Raja OM. Microleakage evaluation of silorane based composite versus methacrylate based composite. J Conserv Dent 2010;13:152-5.  Back to cited text no. 30
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
31.
Santini A, Miletic V. Comparison of the hybrid layer formed by silorane adhesive, one-step self-etch and etch and rinse systems using confocal micro-Raman spectroscopy and SEM. J Dent 2008;36:683-91.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Mirzaie M, Yasini E, Kermanshah H, Omidi BR. The effect of mechanical load cycling and polishing time on microleakage of class V glass-ionomer and composite restorations: A scanning electron microscopy evaluation. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2014;11:100-8.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Ferracane JL, Condon JR. In vitro evaluation of the marginal degradation of dental composites under simulated occlusal loading. Dent Mater 1999;15:262-7.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Draughn RA. Compressive fatigue limits of composite restorative materials. J Dent Res 1979;58:1093-6.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Gogna R, Jagadis S, Shashikal K. A comparative in vitro study of microleakage by a radioactive isotope and compressive strength of three nanofilled composite resin restorations. J Conserv Dent 2011;14:128-31.  Back to cited text no. 35
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
36.
Sabbagh J, Ryelandt L, Bachérius L, Biebuyck JJ, Vreven J, Lambrechts P, et al. Characterization of the inorganic fraction of resin composites. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:1090-101.  Back to cited text no. 36
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]


This article has been cited by
1 Clinical Steps for Restoration of Fractured Anterior Teeth: Color Protocol with Non-VITA Scale
Ubiracy Gaião,Leonardo Fernandes da Cunha,Cibele de Almeida Kintopp,André Vivan Garcia,Carla Castiglia Gonzaga,Alexandre Moro,Gisele Maria Correr
Case Reports in Dentistry. 2019; 2019: 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Effect of Adhesive Restoration and Bleaching Technique on the Concentration of Hydrogen Peroxide In the Pulp Chamber
V Cavalli,BG Silva,SB Berger,G Abuna,FC Marson,CPM Tabchoury,M Giannini
Operative Dentistry. 2017; 42(2): E44
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
Search
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1791    
    Printed13    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded131    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal