THE EFFECT OF BONDING AND SURFACE SEALANT APPLICATION ON POSTOPERATIVE SENSITIVITY FROM POSTERIOR COMPOSITES

Year 2015, Volume: 49 Issue: 3, 1 - 10, 19.02.2015

Neslihan Tekçe , Mustafa Demirci , Sultan Göktürk Safa Tuncer , Emre Özel Kanşad Pala Canan Baydemir

https://doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.33921

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to evaluate
the postoperative sensitivity of posterior Class I
composite restoration at short-term, restorated
with two different all-in-one self-etch adhesives
with or without surface sealant application.
Materials and Methods: 44 restorations were
inserted in 11 patients who required Class I
restorations in their molars. Each patient received
4 restorations, thus four groups were formed; (1)
G-Aenial Bond (GC, Japan); (2) Clearfil S3 Bond
(Kuraray, Japan); (3) G-Aenial Bond+Fortify Plus
(Bisco, USA), (4) Clearfil S3 Bond+Fortify Plus.
Sensitivity was evaluated at 24h, 7, 15, and 30
days using cold air, ice, and pressure stimuli using
a visual analog scale. Comparisons of continuous
variables between the sensitivity evaluations were
performed using the Friedman’s One-Way Analysis
of Variance with repeated measures test (p<0.05).
Results: The type of adhesive used and the
application of a surface sealant had no significant
effects in postoperative sensitivity (p>0.05). The
use of Clearfil S3 Bond resulted in almost the same
level of postoperative sensitivity as did the use
of G-Aenial Bond. The highest sensitivity scores
were observed for the surface sealant applied
teeth without any statistical significance (p>0.05).
Conclusion: Self etch adhesives displayed
postoperative sensitivity. The sensitivity scores slightly
decreased at the end of 30 days (p>0.05). Surface
sealant application did not result in a decrease
in sensitivity scores for either dentin adhesives.

Keywords

All-in-one adhesives; surface sealant; postoperative sensitivity

Yüzey Örtücü Uygulaması ve Bonding’in Arka Bölge Restorasyonlarda Oluşan Postoperatif Hassasiyet Üzerine Etkisi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı iki farklı all-in-one self etch adezif ile yüzey örtücü uygulamasının arka bölge sınıf I restorasyonlarda oluşan postoperatif hassasiyet üzerine etkisini değerlendirmektir.Gereç ve Yöntem: Arka bölge azı dişlerinde sınıf I restorasyon endikasyonu bulunan 11 hastada 44 restorasyon bu çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. Her bir hastaya 4 restorasyon yapılmıştır. Restorasyonların tamamlanmasında bonding olarak G-Aenial Bond (GC, Japan) ve Clearfil S3 Bond (Kuraray, Japan), kompozit materyali olarak Clearfil Majesty Posterior (Kuraray, Japan) kullanılmıştır. Restorasyonların tamamlanmasının arkasından her bir bağlayıcının uygulandığı iki dişten rastgele seçilen bir tanesine yüzey örtücü (Fortify Plus, Bisco, USA) uygulanmıştır. Hassasiyet değerlendirmesi soğuk hava uygulaması, buz ve basınç uygulaması ile 24 saat, 7, 15 ve 30 gün sonunda VAS skalası kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Hassasiyet değerlerinin karşılaştırmasında Friedmen Tek yönlü varyans analizi kullanılmıştır (p < 0.05). Bulgular: 30 gün sonunda 44 restorasyon incelenmiştir. Çalışmada incelenen adezif veya yüzey örtücü, restorasyonların hassasiyet skorlarında anlamlı bir değişikliğe sebep olmamıştır. Clearfil S3 Bond ve G-Aenial bond hemen hemen aynı hassasiyet skorları sergilemişlerdir. En yüksek hassasiyet, yüzey örtücü uygulanmış dişlerden elde edilmiştir. Sonuç: Self etch adezif sistemler restorasyonlarda hassasiyete sebep olmuşlardır. Restorasyonlardaki hassasiyet 30 gün sonunda hafif düzeyde azalmıştır. Yüzey örtücü uygulaması hassasiyet skorlarında azalmaya sebep olmamıştır

Keywords

All-in-one adezifler, yüzey örtücü, postoperatif hassasiyet

References

• Akpata ES, Behbehani J. Effect of bonding
• systems on postoperative sensitivity from
• posterior composites. Am J Dent 2006;19(3):151-
• -
• Akpata ES, Sadiq W. Postoperative sensitivity
• in glass-ionomer versus adhesive resin-lined
• posterior composites. Am J Dent 2001;14(1):34-
• -
• Tay FR, King NM, Chan KM, Pashley DH.
• How can nanoleakage occur in self-etching
• adhesive systems that demineralize and infiltrate
• simultaneously? J Adhes Dent 2002;4(4):255-
• -
• Unemori M, Matsuya Y, Akashi A, Goto Y,
• Akamine A. Composite resin restoration and
• postoperative sensitivity: Clinical follow-up in an
• undergraduate program. J Dent 2001;29(1):7-13.
• van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. A 7-year randomized
• prospective study of a one-step self-etching
• adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. The
• effect of curing modes and restorative material.
• J Dent 2012;40(12):1060-1067.
• Lutz F, Krejci I, Barbakow F. Quality
• and durability of marginal adaptation in
• bonded composite restorations. Dent Mater
• ;7(2):107-113.
• Irie M, Tanaka J, Maruo Y, Nishigawa G.
• Vertical and horizontal polymerization
• shrinkage in composite restorations. Dent Mater
• ;30(7):e189-198.
• Chen HY, Manhart J, Hickel R, Kunzelmann
• KH. Polymerization contraction stress in lightcured
• packable composite resins. Dent Mater
• ;17(3):253-259.
• Ferracane JL. Buonocore lecture. Placing dental
• composites--a stressful experience. Oper Dent
• ;33(3):247-257.
• Opdam NJ, Feilzer AJ, Roeters JJ, Smale I. Class
• i occlusal composite resin restorations: In vivo
• postoperative sensitivity, wall adaptation, and
• microleakage. Am J Dent 1998;11(5):229-234.
• Tay FR, Pashley DH. Have dentin adhesives
• become too hydrophilic? J Can Dent Assoc
• ;69(11):726-731.
• Carvalho RM, Chersoni S, Frankenberger R,
• Pashley DH, Prati C, Tay FR. A challenge to the
• conventional wisdom that simultaneous etching
• and resin infiltration always occurs in self-etch
• adhesives. Biomaterials 2005;26(9):1035-1042.
• Tay FR, Pashley DH, Suh BI, Carvalho
• RM, Itthagarun A. Single-step adhesives are
• permeable membranes. J Dent 2002;30(7-
• :371-382.
• Tay FR, Pashley DH, Yiu CK, Sanares AM, Wei
• SH. Factors contributing to the incompatibility
• between simplified-step adhesives and
• chemically-cured or dual-cured composites. Part
• i. Single-step self-etching adhesive. J Adhes
• Dent 2003;5(1):27-40.
• Unemori M, Matsuya Y, Akashi A, Goto
• Y, Akamine A. Self-etching adhesives
• and postoperative sensitivity. Am J Dent
• ;17(3):191-195.
• Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, Peumans M, De
• Munck J, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. The
• role of hema in one-step self-etch adhesives.
• Dent Mater 2008;24(10):1412-1419.
• Casselli DS, Martins LR. Postoperative
• sensitivity in class i composite resin restorations
• in vivo. J Adhes Dent 2006;8(1):53-58.
• Dickinson GL, Leinfelder KF, Mazer RB,
• Russell CM. Effect of surface penetrating sealant
• on wear rate of posterior composite resins. J Am
• Dent Assoc 1990;121(2):251-255.
• Delfino CS, Duarte S, Jr. Effect of the
• composite surface sealant application moment
• on marginal sealing of compactable composite
• resin restoration. J Mater Sci Mater Med
• ;18(12):2257-2261.
• Erhardt MC, Magalhaes CS, Serra MC. The effect
• of rebonding on microleakage of class v aesthetic
• restorations. Oper Dent 2002;27(4):396-402.
• Lima AF, Soares GP, Vasconcellos PH,
• Ambrosano GM, Marchi GM, Lovadino JR,
• Aguiar FH. Effect of surface sealants on
• microleakage of class ii restorations after
• thermocycling and long-term water storage. J
• Adhes Dent 2011;13(3):249-254.
• Munro GA, Hilton TJ, Hermesch CB. In vitro
• microleakage of etched and rebonded class
• composite resin restorations. Oper Dent
• ;21(5):203-208.
• Owens BM, Johnson WW. Effect of new
• generation surface sealants on the marginal
• permeability of class v resin composite
• restorations. Oper Dent 2006;31(4):481-488.
• Al-Omari WM, Al-Omari QD, Omar R. Effect of
• cavity disinfection on postoperative sensitivity
• associated with amalgam restorations. Oper Dent
• ;31(2):165-170.
• Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjor
• IA, Peters M, Rousson V, Randall R, Schmalz
• G, Tyas M, Vanherle G. Recommendations for
• conducting controlled clinical studies of dental
• restorative materials. Science committee project
• /98--fdi world dental federation study design (part
• i) and criteria for evaluation (part ii) of direct and
• indirect restorations including onlays and partial
• crowns. J Adhes Dent 2007;9 Suppl 1(121-147).
• Van Landuyt KL, Peumans M, Fieuws S, De
• Munck J, Cardoso MV, Ermis RB, Lambrechts
• P, Van Meerbeek B. A randomized controlled
• clinical trial of a hema-free all-in-one adhesive
• in non-carious cervical lesions at 1 year. J Dent
• ;36(10):847-855.
• Mannion AF, Balague F, Pellise F, Cedraschi C.
• Pain measurement in patients with low back pain.
• Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol 2007;3(11):610-618.
• Burrow MF, Banomyong D, Harnirattisai C,
• Messer HH. Effect of glass-ionomer cement lining
• on postoperative sensitivity in occlusal cavities
• restored with resin composite--a randomized
• clinical trial. Oper Dent 2009;34(6):648-655.
• Perdigao J, Anauate-Netto C, Carmo AR, Hodges
• JS, Cordeiro HJ, Lewgoy HR, Dutra-Correa M,
• Castilhos N, Amore R. The effect of adhesive and
• flowable composite on postoperative sensitivity:
• -week results. Quintessence Int 2004;35(10):777-
• -
• Weiner RS, Weiner LK, Kugel G. Teaching
• the use of bases and liners: A survey of north
• american dental schools. J Am Dent Assoc
• ;127(11):1640-1645.
• Pashley EL, Agee KA, Pashley DH, Tay FR.
• Effects of one versus two applications of an
• unfilled, all-in-one adhesive on dentine bonding.
• J Dent 2002;30(2-3):83-90.
• Yiu CK, Pashley EL, Hiraishi N, King NM,
• Goracci C, Ferrari M, Carvalho RM, Pashley DH,
• Tay FR. Solvent and water retention in dental
• adhesive blends after evaporation. Biomaterials
• ;26(34):6863-6872.
• Gwinnett AJ, Kanca JA, 3rd. Micromorphology
• of the bonded dentin interface and its relationship
• to bond strength. Am J Dent 1992;5(2):73-77.
• Puckett AD, Fitchie JG, Kirk PC, Gamblin J.
• Direct composite restorative materials. Dent Clin
• North Am 2007;51(3):659-675.
• Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Polymerization
• shrinkage and contraction stress of dental resin
• composites. Dent Mater 2005;21(12):1150-1157.
• Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Marginal
• integrity related to bond strength and strain
• capacity of composite resin restorative systems.
• J Prosthet Dent 1990;64(6):658-664.
• Van Landuyt KL, Mine A, De Munck J, Jaecques
• S, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek
• B. Are one-step adhesives easier to use and
• better performing? Multifactorial assessment
• of contemporary one-step self-etching adhesives.
• J Adhes Dent 2009;11(3):175-190.
• Tay FR, King NM, Suh BI, Pashley DH. Effect of
• delayed activation of light-cured resin composites
• on bonding of all-in-one adhesives. J Adhes Dent
• ;3(3):207-225.
• Uno S, Abo T, Tanaka T, Sano H. In vitro sealing
• performance of two one-step adhesive systems
• in cervical cavities. J Adhes Dent 2004;6(3):211-
• -
• Letzel H. Survival rates and reasons for failure
• of posterior composite restorations in multicentre
• clinical trial. J Dent 1989;17 Suppl 1(S10-17);
• discussion S26-18.
• Gordan VV, Mjor IA. Short- and long-term
• clinical evaluation of postoperative sensitivity
• of a new resin-based restorative material and selfetching
• primer. Oper Dent 2002;27(6):543-548.
• Pashley DH, Pashley EL, Carvalho RM, Tay FR.
• The effects of dentin permeability on restorative
• dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2002;46(2):211-
• -
• Sarrett DC. Clinical challenges and the relevance
• of materials testing for posterior composite
• restorations. Dent Mater 2005;21(1):9-20.