IADR Abstract Archives

Non-destructive Evaluation of Marginal Gaps in Stressed Class V Restorations

Objectives: To evaluate the marginal adaptation of composite resins (CRs) with different elastic moduli (EM), before and after thermo-mechanical loading (TML), using polarization-sensitive, spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (PS-OCT).
Methods: Standardized Class V preparations (2mm width × 2mm height × 1.5mm depth) with occlusal margins in enamel and gingival margins in dentin were made on the facial and lingual surfaces of 12 human premolars. Specimens were randomized to one of three groups (n=8): Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (intermediate EM); Filtek Supreme Ultra (high EM); Durafill VS (low EM). All specimens were restored with the same 2-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond) and CRs were applied and light-cured following manufacture’s recommendations. After finishing (Sof-Lex) and storage (30 days, 100% humidity), 121 cross-sectional PS-OCT baseline images were obtained along each restoration’s margins in increments of 25μm with 3mm (x) × 3mm (y) × 1.34mm (z) as total dimensions sampled in volume. B-scan images were analyzed using Image J, and the deepest enamel and dentin marginal gaps in each specimen were measured linearly. The samples were then loaded for 250,000 cycles (5 Kg at 1.2 Hz) with simultaneous thermocycling (5/55°C) for 90s (CS-4.8, Mechatronik, Germany). The same imaging protocol was then performed post-TML, for the same specimens. Data were statistically analyzed using a general linear model (GLM) analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post-hoc test for pairwise comparisons (P<0.05).
Results: GLM ANOVA showed statistically significant differences in the factors “TML” and “material” (P<0.001) as well as in their interaction (P<0.001). Durafill VS presented significantly higher marginal gaps (P<0.001) than the other composites after TML. Results are summarized in the table.
Conclusions: From the composites tested, the material with the lowest elastic modulus resulted in higher marginal gaps for class V composite resin restorations, particularly after TML.
Division: IADR/AADR/CADR General Session
Meeting: 2017 IADR/AADR/CADR General Session (San Francisco, California)
Location: San Francisco, California
Year: 2017
Final Presentation ID: 0185
Abstract Category|Abstract Category(s): Dental Materials 2:Polymer-based Materials
Authors
  • Vasconcellos, Adalberto  ( Fluminense Federal University , Nova Friburgo , Rio de Janeiro , Brazil ;  University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill , North Carolina , United States )
  • Delgado, Alex  ( University of Florida , Gainesville , Florida , United States )
  • Olafsson, Vilhelm  ( University of Iceland , Reykjavik , Iceland )
  • Abdulhameed, Nader  ( University Of Florida , Gainesville , Florida , United States )
  • Roulet, Jean-francois  ( University of Florida , Gainesville , Florida , United States )
  • Blackmon, Richard  ( University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill , North Carolina , United States )
  • Oldenburg, Amy  ( University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill , North Carolina , United States )
  • Heymann, Harald  ( University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill , North Carolina , United States )
  • Ritter, Andre  ( University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill , North Carolina , United States )
  • Support Funding Agency/Grant Number: This research was supported by CAPES (grant # 8567-13-1)
    Financial Interest Disclosure: NONE
    SESSION INFORMATION
    Oral Session
    Dental Materials-Polymer-based Materials VIII
    Wednesday, 03/22/2017 , 10:15AM - 11:45AM
    TABLES
    Mean marginal gap and standard deviations (n=8) in microns
    MaterialTMLMarginMean (SD)Statistical Significance*
    Tetric EvoCeram Bulk FillBeforeDentin0A
    Enamel0A
    AfterDentin70 (80)A
    Enamel0A
    Filtek Supreme UltraBeforeDentin0A
    Enamel0A
    AfterDentin0A
    Enamel0A
    Durafill VSBeforeDentin0A
    Enamel60 (120)A
    AfterDentin180 (120)B
    Enamel210 (200)B
    *Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups (Tukey test, p<0.001)