SavedAdd your journal

Journals / European Oral Research / 2015 / Volume: 49 Issue: 3

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

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

Neslihan Tekçe
Mustafa Demirci
Sultan Göktürk
Safa Tuncer
Emre Özel
Kanşad Pala
Canan Baydemir
Pages
—
Publication Date
2015-02-19
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Surface sealant application did not result in a decrease in sensitivity scores for either dentin adhesives.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis: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.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: 44 restorations were inserted in 11 patients who required Class I restorations in their molars.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Surface sealant application did not result in a decrease in sensitivity scores for either dentin adhesives.
🔬Design:Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:All-in-one adhesives · surface sealant · postoperative sensitivity

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.

Özet

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

🔖

Cite This Article

Tekçe, N., Demirci, M., Göktürk, S., Tuncer, S., Özel, E., Pala, K., Baydemir, C. (2015). THE EFFECT OF BONDING AND SURFACE SEALANT APPLICATION ON POSTOPERATIVE SENSITIVITY FROM POSTERIOR COMPOSITES. European Oral Research, Volume: 49 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.33921

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (164)

  1. Akpata ES, Behbehani J. Effect of bonding
  2. systems on postoperative sensitivity from
  3. posterior composites. Am J Dent 2006;19(3):151-
  4. Akpata ES, Sadiq W. Postoperative sensitivity
  5. in glass-ionomer versus adhesive resin-lined
  6. posterior composites. Am J Dent 2001;14(1):34-
  7. Tay FR, King NM, Chan KM, Pashley DH.
  8. How can nanoleakage occur in self-etching
  9. adhesive systems that demineralize and infiltrate
  10. simultaneously? J Adhes Dent 2002;4(4):255-
  11. Unemori M, Matsuya Y, Akashi A, Goto Y,
  12. Akamine A. Composite resin restoration and
  13. postoperative sensitivity: Clinical follow-up in an
  14. undergraduate program. J Dent 2001;29(1):7-13.
  15. van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. A 7-year randomized
  16. prospective study of a one-step self-etching
  17. adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. The
  18. effect of curing modes and restorative material.
  19. J Dent 2012;40(12):1060-1067.
  20. Lutz F, Krejci I, Barbakow F. Quality
  21. and durability of marginal adaptation in
  22. bonded composite restorations. Dent Mater;7(2):107-113.
  23. Irie M, Tanaka J, Maruo Y, Nishigawa G.
  24. Vertical and horizontal polymerization
  25. shrinkage in composite restorations. Dent Mater;30(7):e189-198.
  26. Chen HY, Manhart J, Hickel R, Kunzelmann
  27. KH. Polymerization contraction stress in lightcured
  28. packable composite resins. Dent Mater;17(3):253-259.
  29. Ferracane JL. Buonocore lecture. Placing dental
  30. composites--a stressful experience. Oper Dent;33(3):247-257.
  31. Opdam NJ, Feilzer AJ, Roeters JJ, Smale I. Class
  32. i occlusal composite resin restorations: In vivo
  33. postoperative sensitivity, wall adaptation, and
  34. microleakage. Am J Dent 1998;11(5):229-234.
  35. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Have dentin adhesives
  36. become too hydrophilic? J Can Dent Assoc;69(11):726-731.
  37. Carvalho RM, Chersoni S, Frankenberger R,
  38. Pashley DH, Prati C, Tay FR. A challenge to the
  39. conventional wisdom that simultaneous etching
  40. and resin infiltration always occurs in self-etch
  41. adhesives. Biomaterials 2005;26(9):1035-1042.
  42. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Suh BI, Carvalho
  43. RM, Itthagarun A. Single-step adhesives are
  44. permeable membranes. J Dent 2002;30(7-:371-382.
  45. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Yiu CK, Sanares AM, Wei
  46. SH. Factors contributing to the incompatibility
  47. between simplified-step adhesives and
  48. chemically-cured or dual-cured composites. Part
  49. i. Single-step self-etching adhesive. J Adhes
  50. Dent 2003;5(1):27-40.
  51. Unemori M, Matsuya Y, Akashi A, Goto
  52. Y, Akamine A. Self-etching adhesives
  53. and postoperative sensitivity. Am J Dent;17(3):191-195.
  54. Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, Peumans M, De
  55. Munck J, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. The
  56. role of hema in one-step self-etch adhesives.
  57. Dent Mater 2008;24(10):1412-1419.
  58. Casselli DS, Martins LR. Postoperative
  59. sensitivity in class i composite resin restorations
  60. in vivo. J Adhes Dent 2006;8(1):53-58.
  61. Dickinson GL, Leinfelder KF, Mazer RB,
  62. Russell CM. Effect of surface penetrating sealant
  63. on wear rate of posterior composite resins. J Am
  64. Dent Assoc 1990;121(2):251-255.
  65. Delfino CS, Duarte S, Jr. Effect of the
  66. composite surface sealant application moment
  67. on marginal sealing of compactable composite
  68. resin restoration. J Mater Sci Mater Med;18(12):2257-2261.
  69. Erhardt MC, Magalhaes CS, Serra MC. The effect
  70. of rebonding on microleakage of class v aesthetic
  71. restorations. Oper Dent 2002;27(4):396-402.
  72. Lima AF, Soares GP, Vasconcellos PH,
  73. Ambrosano GM, Marchi GM, Lovadino JR,
  74. Aguiar FH. Effect of surface sealants on
  75. microleakage of class ii restorations after
  76. thermocycling and long-term water storage. J
  77. Adhes Dent 2011;13(3):249-254.
  78. Munro GA, Hilton TJ, Hermesch CB. In vitro
  79. microleakage of etched and rebonded class
  80. composite resin restorations. Oper Dent;21(5):203-208.
  81. Owens BM, Johnson WW. Effect of new
  82. generation surface sealants on the marginal
  83. permeability of class v resin composite
  84. restorations. Oper Dent 2006;31(4):481-488.
  85. Al-Omari WM, Al-Omari QD, Omar R. Effect of
  86. cavity disinfection on postoperative sensitivity
  87. associated with amalgam restorations. Oper Dent;31(2):165-170.
  88. Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjor
  89. IA, Peters M, Rousson V, Randall R, Schmalz
  90. G, Tyas M, Vanherle G. Recommendations for
  91. conducting controlled clinical studies of dental
  92. restorative materials. Science committee project
  93. /98--fdi world dental federation study design (part
  94. i) and criteria for evaluation (part ii) of direct and
  95. indirect restorations including onlays and partial
  96. crowns. J Adhes Dent 2007;9 Suppl 1(121-147).
  97. Van Landuyt KL, Peumans M, Fieuws S, De
  98. Munck J, Cardoso MV, Ermis RB, Lambrechts
  99. P, Van Meerbeek B. A randomized controlled
  100. clinical trial of a hema-free all-in-one adhesive
  101. in non-carious cervical lesions at 1 year. J Dent;36(10):847-855.
  102. Mannion AF, Balague F, Pellise F, Cedraschi C.
  103. Pain measurement in patients with low back pain.
  104. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol 2007;3(11):610-618.
  105. Burrow MF, Banomyong D, Harnirattisai C,
  106. Messer HH. Effect of glass-ionomer cement lining
  107. on postoperative sensitivity in occlusal cavities
  108. restored with resin composite--a randomized
  109. clinical trial. Oper Dent 2009;34(6):648-655.
  110. Perdigao J, Anauate-Netto C, Carmo AR, Hodges
  111. JS, Cordeiro HJ, Lewgoy HR, Dutra-Correa M,
  112. Castilhos N, Amore R. The effect of adhesive and
  113. flowable composite on postoperative sensitivity:
  114. week results. Quintessence Int 2004;35(10):777-
  115. Weiner RS, Weiner LK, Kugel G. Teaching
  116. the use of bases and liners: A survey of north
  117. american dental schools. J Am Dent Assoc;127(11):1640-1645.
  118. Pashley EL, Agee KA, Pashley DH, Tay FR.
  119. Effects of one versus two applications of an
  120. unfilled, all-in-one adhesive on dentine bonding.
  121. J Dent 2002;30(2-3):83-90.
  122. Yiu CK, Pashley EL, Hiraishi N, King NM,
  123. Goracci C, Ferrari M, Carvalho RM, Pashley DH,
  124. Tay FR. Solvent and water retention in dental
  125. adhesive blends after evaporation. Biomaterials;26(34):6863-6872.
  126. Gwinnett AJ, Kanca JA, 3rd. Micromorphology
  127. of the bonded dentin interface and its relationship
  128. to bond strength. Am J Dent 1992;5(2):73-77.
  129. Puckett AD, Fitchie JG, Kirk PC, Gamblin J.
  130. Direct composite restorative materials. Dent Clin
  131. North Am 2007;51(3):659-675.
  132. Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Polymerization
  133. shrinkage and contraction stress of dental resin
  134. composites. Dent Mater 2005;21(12):1150-1157.
  135. Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Marginal
  136. integrity related to bond strength and strain
  137. capacity of composite resin restorative systems.
  138. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64(6):658-664.
  139. Van Landuyt KL, Mine A, De Munck J, Jaecques
  140. S, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek
  141. B. Are one-step adhesives easier to use and
  142. better performing? Multifactorial assessment
  143. of contemporary one-step self-etching adhesives.
  144. J Adhes Dent 2009;11(3):175-190.
  145. Tay FR, King NM, Suh BI, Pashley DH. Effect of
  146. delayed activation of light-cured resin composites
  147. on bonding of all-in-one adhesives. J Adhes Dent;3(3):207-225.
  148. Uno S, Abo T, Tanaka T, Sano H. In vitro sealing
  149. performance of two one-step adhesive systems
  150. in cervical cavities. J Adhes Dent 2004;6(3):211-
  151. Letzel H. Survival rates and reasons for failure
  152. of posterior composite restorations in multicentre
  153. clinical trial. J Dent 1989;17 Suppl 1(S10-17);
  154. discussion S26-18.
  155. Gordan VV, Mjor IA. Short- and long-term
  156. clinical evaluation of postoperative sensitivity
  157. of a new resin-based restorative material and selfetching
  158. primer. Oper Dent 2002;27(6):543-548.
  159. Pashley DH, Pashley EL, Carvalho RM, Tay FR.
  160. The effects of dentin permeability on restorative
  161. dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2002;46(2):211-
  162. Sarrett DC. Clinical challenges and the relevance
  163. of materials testing for posterior composite
  164. restorations. Dent Mater 2005;21(1):9-20.