HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 135, No 2, 185-193. © 2004 American Dental Association

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by PURK, J. H. Articles by EICK, J. D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by PURK, J. H. Articles by EICK, J. D. Related Collections Restoratives

JADA Continuing Education

Background. Gingival margins in Class II composite restorations are a site of frequent failure. The purpose of the authors’ study was to compare the microtensile dentin bond strength of gingival and axial restored cavity preparation walls of Class II composite restorations under in vivo and in vitro conditions.

Methods. After obtaining informed consent, the authors placed Class II resin-based composite restorations in 14 premolar teeth from five patients, under in vivo or in vitro conditions. The teeth were sectioned to obtain rectangular specimens from axial and gingival walls with a surface area of approximately 0.5 square millimeter. The authors tested 85 microtensile adhesive samples from the 14 teeth on a testing instrument (Universal Instron, Model 125, Instron, Canton, Mass.) until failure.

Results. The mean (± standard deviation) mircotensile dentin bond strengths in megapascals were as follows: in vivo axial, 36.5 (14.9); in vivo gingival, 17.6 (11.6); in vitro axial, 49.5 (13.9); in vitro gingival, 34.0 (13.1). A two-way analysis of variance found a statistically significant difference between in vitro and in vivo conditions and between the axial and gingival walls (P < .001). Eighty-eight percent of the fractured samples involved the adhesive layer as observed under scanning electron microscopy up to x 2,500. Seventeen of the gingival samples and two of the axial samples debonded during the preparation phase and could not be tested.

Conclusion. The dentinal microtensile strength of adhesive/resin-based composite bonded to the gingival wall was significantly weaker than the bond to the axial wall, and in vivo conditions produced significantly weaker bond strengths than did in vitro conditions.

Clinical Implications. The dentinal adhesive bond of resin-based composite to gingival walls is significantly weaker and thus more subject to failure than the bond to axial walls. In vitro bond strength studies may overestimate the bond strength of adhesives in in vivo applications.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Y. Yuan, Y. Shimada, S. Ichinose, A. Sadr, and J. Tagami Effects of Dentin Characteristics on Interfacial Nanoleakage J. Dent. Res., October 1, 2007; 86(10): 1001 - 1006. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Donmez, S. Belli, D.H. Pashley, and F.R. Tay Ultrastructural Correlates of in vivo/in vitro Bond Degradation in Self-etch Adhesives J. Dent. Res., April 1, 2005; 84(4): 355 - 359. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]