Microleakage in combined amalgam/composite resin restorations in MOD cavities

Tolidis, Kosmas; Boutsiouki, Christina; Gerasimou, Paris

Abstract

AIM: To compare marginal seal at tooth-material and material-material interfaces in the proximal box in combined amalgam/composite resin restorations. METHODS: Mesio-occlusal-distal (MOD) cavities were prepared in 35 premolars and permanent molars with carbide bur. The distal proximal box was restored with amalgam (Permite, SDI) until reaching the height of pulpal floor. Dental tissues were etched with 37% acid and a bonding agent (Bond 1-SF, Pentron) was applied and cured. Composite resin (Filtek Z250, 3M-ESPE) was placed in layers in the mesial proximal box and occlusally, and light cured. Marginal adaptation was evaluated at the following interfaces: amalgam-tooth (A), amalgam-composite resin (AC) and composite resin-tooth (C). Microleakage was evaluated by means of methylene blue infiltration after 7-day water storage and thermocycling regimen (1500 cycles). Microleakage was assessed as percentage depth of horizontal dye penetration. RESULTS: ANOVA showed statistically significant difference between A-AC and A-C (p<0.01). No statistically significant difference was found between AC-C interfaces (p>0.05). Mean microleakage values were A (73.529/28.71), AC (34.118/34.6) and C (40.435/34.965), according to Tukey's test. CONCLUSIONS: Although the bonding mechanism between amalgam and composite has not yet been completely explained, amalgam/composite resin interface exhibited the lowest microleakage scores. Since amalgam/composite resin restorations exhibited lower microleakage scores than composite resin on the cervical surface, combined restorations can be considered as a biological and aesthetic alternative to conventional Class II composite or amalgam restorations.

combined restorations; amalgam-composite; microleakage; class II cavity; MOD cavity

¹
Turkun LS, Aktener O, Ates M. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report. Quintessence Int. 2003; 34: 418-26.
²
Gomes GM, Bittencourt BF, Pilatti GL, Gomes GC, Gomes OMM, Calixto AL. Effect of light-curing units on gap formation and microleakage of class II composite restorations. Braz J Oral Sci. 2011; 10: 262-7.
³
Oliveira KM, Consani S, Gonçalves LS, Brandt WC, Ccahuana-Vásquez RA. Photoelastic evaluation of the effect of composite formulation on polymerization shrinkage stress. Braz Oral Res. 2012; 6: 202-8.
⁴
Ishikiriama SK, Valeretto TM, Franco EB, Mondelli RFL. The influence of "C-factor" and light activation technique on polymerization contraction forces of resin composite. J Appl Oral Sci. 2012; 20: 603-6.
⁵
Pashley DH, Tay FR, Breschi L, Tjaderhane L, Carvalho RM, Carrilho M, et al. State of the art etch-and-rinse adhesives. Dent Mater. 2011; 27: 11-6.
⁶
Lenzi TL, Soares FZ, Rocha R O. Degradation of resin-dentin bonds of etch-and-rinse adhesive system to primary and permanent teeth. Braz Oral Res. 2012; 26: 511-5.
⁷
ADA Council on Scientific Affairs, ADA Council on Dental Benefit Programs. Statement on posterior resin-based composites. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998; 129: 1627-8.
⁸
Davidson CL, de Gee AJ, Feilzer A. The competition between the composite-dentin bond strength and the polymerization contraction stress. J Dent Res. 1984; 63: 1396-9.
⁹
Duncalf WV, Wilson NH. Marginal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in Class II conservative preparations. Quintessence Int. 2001; 32(5): 391-5.
¹⁰
Bernardo M, Luis H, Marin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitao J et al. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Asssoc. 2007; 138: 775-83.
¹¹
Johansson BI, Mjor IA. Marginal degradation and corrosion of a dispersed high copper amalgam. Scand J Dent Res. 1988; 96: 75-82.
¹²
Anglis LF, Fine L. The amalgam-composite resin restoration. J Prosth Dent. 1982; 47: 685.
¹³
Blum IR, Hafiana K, Curtis A, Barbour ME, Attin T, Lynch CD, et al. The effect of surface conditioning on the bond strength of resin composite to amalgam. J Dent. 2012; 40: 15-21.
¹⁴
Cehreli SB, Arhun N, Celik C. Amalgam repair: quantitative evaluation of amalgam-resin and resin-tooth interfaces with different surface treatments. Oper Dent. 2010; 35: 337-44.
¹⁵
Franchi M, Breschi L, Ruggeri O. Cusp fracture resistance in composite-amalgam combined restorations. J Dent. 1999; 27: 47-52.
¹⁶
Rodrigues Junior SA, Pin LFS, Machado G, Della Bona A, Demarco FF. Influence of different restorative techniques on marginal seal of class II composite restorations. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010; 18: 37-43.
¹⁷
Franchi M, Trisi P, Montamari G, Piattelli A. Composite resin-amalgam compound restorations. Quintessence Int. 1994; 25: 577-82.
¹⁸
Kournetas N, Kakaboura A, Giftopoulos D, Chakmachi M, Rahiotis C, Geis-Gerstofer J. Marginal behaviour of self-etch adhesive/composite and combined amalgam-composite restorations. Europ J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2010; 18: 70-7.
¹⁹
Hovav S, Holan G, Lewinstein I, Fuks AB. Microleakage of class 2 Superbond-lined composite restorations with and without a cervical amalgam base. Oper Dent. 1995; 20: 63-7.
²⁰
Jokstad A, Bayne S, Blunck U, Tyas M, Wilson N. Quality of dental restorations. FDI Commission Project 2-95. Int Dent J. 2001; 51: 117-58.
²¹
Hayashi M, Wilson NH. Marginal deterioration as a predictor of failure of a posterior composite. Eur J Oral Sci. 2003; 111: 155-62.
²²
Morge S, Adamczak E, Linden LA. Variation in human salivary pellicle formation on biomaterials during the day. Arch Oral Biol. 1989; 34: 669-74.
²³
Demarco FF, Ramos OL, Mota CS, Formolo E, Justino LM. Influence of different restorative techniques on microleakage in class II cavities with gingival wall in cementum. Oper Dent. 2001; 26: 253-9.
²⁴
Ozcan M, Vallittu PK, Huysmans MC, Kalk W, Vahlberg T. Bond strength of resin composite to differently conditioned amalgam. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2006; 17: 7-13.
²⁵
Kaur G, Singh M, Bal C, Singh U. Comparative evaluation of combined amalgam and composite resin restorations in extensively carious vital posterior teeth: An in vivo study. J Conserv Dent. 2011; 14: 46-51.

Publication Dates

Publication in this collection
19 July 2013
Date of issue
June 2013

History

Received
09 Feb 2013
Accepted
22 May 2013

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

[1] ¹
Turkun LS, Aktener O, Ates M. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report. Quintessence Int. 2003; 34: 418-26.

[2] ²
Gomes GM, Bittencourt BF, Pilatti GL, Gomes GC, Gomes OMM, Calixto AL. Effect of light-curing units on gap formation and microleakage of class II composite restorations. Braz J Oral Sci. 2011; 10: 262-7.

[3] ³
Oliveira KM, Consani S, Gonçalves LS, Brandt WC, Ccahuana-Vásquez RA. Photoelastic evaluation of the effect of composite formulation on polymerization shrinkage stress. Braz Oral Res. 2012; 6: 202-8.

[4] ⁴
Ishikiriama SK, Valeretto TM, Franco EB, Mondelli RFL. The influence of "C-factor" and light activation technique on polymerization contraction forces of resin composite. J Appl Oral Sci. 2012; 20: 603-6.

[5] ⁵
Pashley DH, Tay FR, Breschi L, Tjaderhane L, Carvalho RM, Carrilho M, et al. State of the art etch-and-rinse adhesives. Dent Mater. 2011; 27: 11-6.

[6] ⁶
Lenzi TL, Soares FZ, Rocha R O. Degradation of resin-dentin bonds of etch-and-rinse adhesive system to primary and permanent teeth. Braz Oral Res. 2012; 26: 511-5.

[7] ⁷
ADA Council on Scientific Affairs, ADA Council on Dental Benefit Programs. Statement on posterior resin-based composites. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998; 129: 1627-8.

[8] ⁸
Davidson CL, de Gee AJ, Feilzer A. The competition between the composite-dentin bond strength and the polymerization contraction stress. J Dent Res. 1984; 63: 1396-9.

[9] ⁹
Duncalf WV, Wilson NH. Marginal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in Class II conservative preparations. Quintessence Int. 2001; 32(5): 391-5.

[10] ¹⁰
Bernardo M, Luis H, Marin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitao J et al. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Asssoc. 2007; 138: 775-83.

[11] ¹¹
Johansson BI, Mjor IA. Marginal degradation and corrosion of a dispersed high copper amalgam. Scand J Dent Res. 1988; 96: 75-82.

[12] ¹²
Anglis LF, Fine L. The amalgam-composite resin restoration. J Prosth Dent. 1982; 47: 685.

[13] ¹³
Blum IR, Hafiana K, Curtis A, Barbour ME, Attin T, Lynch CD, et al. The effect of surface conditioning on the bond strength of resin composite to amalgam. J Dent. 2012; 40: 15-21.

[14] ¹⁴
Cehreli SB, Arhun N, Celik C. Amalgam repair: quantitative evaluation of amalgam-resin and resin-tooth interfaces with different surface treatments. Oper Dent. 2010; 35: 337-44.

[15] ¹⁵
Franchi M, Breschi L, Ruggeri O. Cusp fracture resistance in composite-amalgam combined restorations. J Dent. 1999; 27: 47-52.

[16] ¹⁶
Rodrigues Junior SA, Pin LFS, Machado G, Della Bona A, Demarco FF. Influence of different restorative techniques on marginal seal of class II composite restorations. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010; 18: 37-43.

[17] ¹⁷
Franchi M, Trisi P, Montamari G, Piattelli A. Composite resin-amalgam compound restorations. Quintessence Int. 1994; 25: 577-82.

[18] ¹⁸
Kournetas N, Kakaboura A, Giftopoulos D, Chakmachi M, Rahiotis C, Geis-Gerstofer J. Marginal behaviour of self-etch adhesive/composite and combined amalgam-composite restorations. Europ J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2010; 18: 70-7.

[19] ¹⁹
Hovav S, Holan G, Lewinstein I, Fuks AB. Microleakage of class 2 Superbond-lined composite restorations with and without a cervical amalgam base. Oper Dent. 1995; 20: 63-7.

[20] ²⁰
Jokstad A, Bayne S, Blunck U, Tyas M, Wilson N. Quality of dental restorations. FDI Commission Project 2-95. Int Dent J. 2001; 51: 117-58.

[21] ²¹
Hayashi M, Wilson NH. Marginal deterioration as a predictor of failure of a posterior composite. Eur J Oral Sci. 2003; 111: 155-62.

[22] ²²
Morge S, Adamczak E, Linden LA. Variation in human salivary pellicle formation on biomaterials during the day. Arch Oral Biol. 1989; 34: 669-74.

[23] ²³
Demarco FF, Ramos OL, Mota CS, Formolo E, Justino LM. Influence of different restorative techniques on microleakage in class II cavities with gingival wall in cementum. Oper Dent. 2001; 26: 253-9.

[24] ²⁴
Ozcan M, Vallittu PK, Huysmans MC, Kalk W, Vahlberg T. Bond strength of resin composite to differently conditioned amalgam. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2006; 17: 7-13.

[25] ²⁵
Kaur G, Singh M, Bal C, Singh U. Comparative evaluation of combined amalgam and composite resin restorations in extensively carious vital posterior teeth: An in vivo study. J Conserv Dent. 2011; 14: 46-51.

Brasil

Brasil

Microleakage in combined amalgam/composite resin restorations in MOD cavities

Abstract

Publication Dates

History