Assessing the tooth-restoration interface wear resistance of two cementation techniques: effect of a surface sealant.
This study compared (1) the tooth-restoration interface width of conventional and "resin coating" cementation techniques, (2) the toothbrushing wear resistance of the two interfaces and (3) this study evaluated the influence of a restoration surface sealing on toothbrush wear resistance on both cementation technique interfaces. Mid-coronal buccal surfaces of 40 bovine teeth were ground to obtain a flat enamel surface. For each specimen, a 3 mm x 4 mm x 3 mm dimension rectangular cavity was prepared. The teeth were divided into four groups. Two groups (RC) received a "resin coating" (ED Primer + Tetric Flow) prior to cementation. The remaining two groups (NC) served as non-coated groups. All teeth were restored with composite inlays (Z250) fabricated by the indirect method and were cemented with dual cure resin cement (Panavia F). After finishing the margins, one group from each of the cementation techniques (RC+S and NC+S) had the tooth-restoration interface protected with a restoration surface sealant (Biscover). The specimens were subjected to 100,000 brushing abrasion cycles. The tooth-restoration width was obtained using a Hommel Tester T 1000-basic profilometer and Turbo Datawin NT 1.34 Software (microm). The interface wear (vertical loss/microm and area/microm2) was calculated with Image Tool 3.0 Software. Data were analyzed with Student t-test, one-way analysis of variance and Tukey test (alpha=0.05). Mean interface width for the NC group was 67 microm and 72 microm for the RC group. The student t-test showed no significant differences between groups (p=0.53). ANOVA showed significant differences (p<0.01) in vertical loss among groups (NC: 49.30 microm; NC+S: 7.90 microm; RC: 27.15 microm; RC+S: 4.74 microm). Also, ANOVA showed significant differences (p<0.01) in worn areas among groups (NC: 2,008 microm2; NC+S: 128 microm2; RC: 1,580 microm2 and RC+S: 88 microm2). No differences were found in tooth-restoration interface width and worn area between conventional and "resin coating" techniques. "Resin coating" interface presented reduced vertical loss. Restoration surface sealing provided reduced wear in tooth-restoration interface for both techniques.
Prakki
Anuradha
A
Department of Operative Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental Materials, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Brazil. prakki@yahoo.com
Ribeiro
Ingrid Webb Josephson
IW
Cilli
Renato
R
Mondelli
Rafael Francisco Lia
RF
D000179:Acrylates / Q000737:chemistry; D000818:Animals; D002417:Cattle; D002484:Cementation / Q000379:methods*; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D001840:Dental Bonding; D003737:Dental Cavity Preparation / Q000145:classification; D003743:Dental Enamel / Q000648:ultrastructure; D019554:Dental Restoration Wear / Q000145:classification*; D007284:Inlays; D008689:Methacrylates / Q000737:chemistry; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000737:chemistry*; D013499:Surface Properties; D014072:Tooth Abrasion / Q000145:classification*; D014099:Toothbrushing
D000179:Acrylates; C481141:BisCover; D003188:Composite Resins; C500742:ED Primer II; C444701:Filtek Z250; D008689:Methacrylates; C438843:Panavia-Fluoro; D019279:Resin Cements; C452226:tetric flow composite resin