Evaluation of Bond Strength, Marginal Integrity, and Fracture Strength of Bulk- vs Incrementally-filled Restorations.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the effect of application technique and preparation size on the fracture strength (FS), microtensile bond strength (µTBS) and marginal integrity (MI) of direct resin composite restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Conservative (5 × 2 × 2 mm) or extended (5 × 4 × 2 mm) preparations below the cementoenamel junction were performed in 140 human maxillary premolars (n = 70 per group). After adhesive application (XP Bond), half of each group was restored with the bulk technique (one 4-mm increment of Surefill SDR Flow plus one 1-mm horizontal capping layer of TPH3 [Spectrum TPH3 resin composite]) and half incrementally (TPH3 in three horizontal incremental layers, 1.5 to 2 mm each), all using a metal matrix band. After storage (24 h at 37°C), the proximal surfaces of each tooth were polished with Sof-Lex disks. For FS measurement, 60 restorations were mounted in a universal testing machine and subjected to a compressive axial load applied parallel to the long axis of the tooth, running at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. For µTBS testing, 40 teeth were longitudinally sectioned to obtain resin-dentin bonded sticks from the cavity floor (bonded area: 0.8 mm2). Specimens were tested in tension at 0.5 mm/min. The external marginal integrity of both proximal surfaces was analyzed using SEM of epoxy resin replicas. The µTBS, marginal integrity, and fracture resistance data were subjected to two-way ANOVA, and Tukey's post-hoc test was used for pair-wise comparisons (a = 0.05). RESULTS: Fracture resistance, microtensile bond strength, and marginal integrity values were not statistically significantly affected by application technique or preparation size (p = 0.71, p = 0.82, and p = 0.77, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a bulk-fill flowable composite associated with a conventional resin composite as a final capping layer did not jeopardize the fracture strength, bond strength to dentin, or marginal integrity of posterior restorations.

The Effect of Self-adhesive and Self-etching Resin Cements on the Bond Strength of Nonmetallic Posts in Different Root Thirds.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of self-adhesive and self-etching resin cements on the bond strength of nonmetallic posts in different root regions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty single-rooted human teeth were decoronated, endodontically treated, post-space prepared, and divided into six groups. Glass-fiber (GF) posts (Exacto, Angelus) and fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) posts (EverStick, StickTeck) were cemented with self-adhesive resin cement (Breeze) (SA) (Pentral Clinical) and self-etching resin cement (Panavia-F) (SE) (Kuraray). Six 1-mm-thick rods were obtained from the cervical (C), middle (M), and apical (A) regions of the roots. The specimens were then subjected to microtensile testing in a special machine (BISCO; Schaumburg, IL, USA) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Microtensile bond strength data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests. RESULTS: Means (and SD) of the MPa were: GF/SA/C: 14.32 (2.84), GF/SA/M: 10.69 (2.72), GF/SA/A: 6.77 (2.17), GF/SE/C: 11.56 (4.13), GF/SE/M: 6.49 (2.54), GF/SE/A: 3.60 (1.29), FRC/SA/C: 16.89 (2.66), FRC/SA/M: 13.18 (2.19), FRC/SA/A: 8.45 (1.77), FRC/SE/C: 13.69 (3.26), FRC/SE/M: 9.58 (2.23), FRC/SE/A: 5.62 (2.12). The difference among the regions was statistically significant for all groups (p < 0.05). The self-adhesive resin cement showed better results than the self-etching resin cement when compared to each post (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences in bond strengths of the resin cements when comparable to each post (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The bond strength values were significantly affected by the resin cement and the highest values were found for self-adhesive resin cement.