The Effects of Cavity Preparation and Composite Resin on Bond Strength and Stress Distribution Using the Microtensile Bond Test.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of flowable bulk-fill or conventional composite resin on bond strength and stress distribution in flat or mesio-occlusal-distal (MOD) cavity preparations using the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) test.

METHODS

Forty human molars were divided into two groups and received either standardized MOD or flat cavity preparations. Restorations were made using the conventional composite resin Z350 (Filtek Z350XT, 3M-ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) or flowable bulk-fill (FBF) composite resin (Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable, 3M-ESPE). Postgel shrinkage was measured using the strain gauge technique (n=10). The Z350 buildup was made in two increments of 2.0 mm, and the FBF was made in a single increment of 4.0 mm. Six rectangular sticks were obtained for each tooth, and each section was used for μTBS testing at 1.0 mm/min. Polymerization shrinkage was modeled using postgel shrinkage data. The μTBS data were analyzed statistically using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the postgel shrinkage data were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc test. The failure modes were analyzed using a chi-square test (α=0.05).

RESULTS

Our results show that both the type of cavity preparation and the composite resin used affect the bond strength and stress distribution. The Z350 composite resin had a higher postgel shrinkage than the FBF composite resin. The μTBS of the MOD preparation was influenced by the type of composite resin used. Irrespective of composite resin, flat cavity preparations resulted in higher μTBS than MOD preparations ( p<0.001). Specifically, in flat-prepared cavities, FBF composite resin had a similar μTBS relative to Z350 composite resin. However, in MOD-prepared cavities, those with FBF composite resin had higher μTBS values than those with Z350 composite resin. Adhesive failure was prevalent for all tested groups. The MOD preparation resulted in higher shrinkage stress than the flat preparation, irrespective of composite resin. For MOD-prepared cavities, FBF composite resin resulted in lower stress than Z350 composite resin. However, no differences were found for flat-prepared cavities.

CONCLUSIONS

FBF composite resin had lower shrinkage stress than Z350 conventional composite resin. The μTBS of the MOD preparation was influenced by the composite resin type. Flat cavity preparations had no influence on stress and μTBS. However, for MOD preparation, composite resin with higher shrinkage stress resulted in lower μTBS values.