Comparison of the shear bond strength of silorane-based composite resin and methacrylate based composite resin to MTA

Introduction

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) has been regarded as an ideal material for perforation repair, retrograde filling, pulp capping and apexification since its introduction in 1993. MTA is a combination of a kind of mineral powder which consists of tricalcium sulfate, bismuth oxide, dicalcium silicate, tricalcium aluminate and calcium sulfate dihydrate. There are two types of MTA, namely gray and white, and both formulations are identical except that the gray MTA contains tetracalcium aluminoferrite. In the presence of moisture, MTA sets into a hard mass by hydration, becomes a colloidal gel similar to calcium hydroxide and reaches a pH of 12.5. Several studies have demonstrated its excellent sealing ability and biocompatibility.¹

MTA is recommended as an alternative pulp capping agent for vital pulp therapy in pediatric dentistry.² While the use of MTA in vital pulp therapy has gained popularity, what to place over MTA as a permanent restorative material has become a crucial issue. However, the adhesion of restorative materials to MTA has not been studied extensively and thus it is not very well-known.

Introduced in 2007, silorane-based composite resin is a low-shrinkage posterior restorative composite resin. This composite resin can only be used by its own self-etch adhesive system.³ Silorane is obtained from the reaction of oxirane and siloxane molecules. SBC exhibits low polymerization shrinkage due to the ring-opening oxirane monomer and increases hydrophobicity due to the presence of siloxane species.³

This in vitro study aimed to compare the shear bond strength of silorane-based composite resin and methacrylate-based composite resin to MTA.

Materials and Methods

Twenty specimens of MTA (Angelus, Brasil) were prepared by using cylindrical acrylic blocks. For specimens of the test and control groups, stainless steel cylindrical molds were prepared in appropriate sizes (4 cm in length, 2.7 cm in diameter) as universal testing devices (Testometric Ax, M500-25kN, Rochdale, England) and these molds were filled with acrylic resin. A central hole, measuring 2 mm in height and 5 mm in diameter, was prepared on the cylindrical acrylic blocks. Standardization of the hole was achieved using a caliper and a periodontal probe. The schematic representation of the ‘materials and methods’ is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Schematicrepresentation of the ‘materials and methods’. a: White MTA (Angelus, Brasil). b: Stainless steel cylindrical molds were prepared in appropriate sizes (4 cm in length and 2.7 cm in diameter) as universal testing devices and these molds were filled with acrylic resin. A central hole, measuring 2 mm in height and 5 mm in diameter, was prepared on the cylindrical acrylic blocks. The holes were filled with MTA. c: Test and control group materials were applied on the MTA surface with a cylindrical-shaped plastic matrix with a diameter of 4 mm and a height of 5 mm. d: Test group material; Filtek Silorane System Adhesive, a self-etch, bond and composite resin, 3M ESPE, USA. e: Control group material; Clearfil SE Bond primer, bond, Kuraray Medical Inc., Okayama, Japan and Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA. f: The photograph of a sample ready for testing. g: Testometric Ax, M500-25kN, Rochdale, England. h: Shear bond strength test.

The holes were filled with MTA which was mixed in line with the manufacturer’s instructions and covered with a wet cotton pellet and temporary filling material (Cavit, ESPE America Inc., Norristown, PA, USA). Then, the specimens were stored at 37°C under 100% humidity for 24 hours to create the necessary setting. After the removal of the temporary material, the MTA surface was not polished.

The blocks were randomly divided into two groups. The MTA surface was dried for 10 seconds to provide a dry surface.

For the test group, the self-etch primer (Filtek Silorane System Adhesive, Self-etch, 3M ESPE, USA) was applied to the surface for 15 seconds with a black microbrush, air-dispersed carefully and light-cured for 10 seconds. The adhesive bond (Filtek Silorane System Adhesive, self etch, 3M ESPE, USA) was then applied similarly with a green microbrush and light-cured for 10 seconds. SBC (Filtek Silorane Low-shrinkage Posterior Restorative, 3M ESPE, USA) in A2 shade was applied incrementally into cylindrical shaped plastic matrix with a diameter of 4 mm and a height of 5 mm by means of incremental technique; each increment was light-cured with a light-emitting diode light-curing unit (Elipar Freelight 3M ESPE) for 40 seconds.

For the control group, self-etch primer (Clearfil SE Bond primer, Kuraray Medical Inc., Okayama, Japan) was applied for 20 seconds and dried thoroughly with a mild air stream. Then the adhesive bond (Clearfil SE Bond Bond, Kuraray Medical Inc., Okayama, Japan) was applied, air-dried gently and light-cured for 10 seconds. MBC (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) in A2 shade was applied into a cylindrical plastic matrix with a diameter of 4 mm and a height of 5 mm by means of an incremental technique and then light-cured with a light-emitting diode light-curing unit (Elipar Freelight, 3M ESPE) for 40 seconds.

The polymerized specimens were stored in distilled water at room temperature for 24 hours. The specimens were inserted into the slot with the help of a screw, fixed and then sheared with a ring blade in a universal test machine (Testometric Ax, M500-25kN, Rochdale, England) at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. The time of fracture was recorded in Newtons of force, next the shear bond strength was calculated in megapascals (MPa) by dividing the peak load at failure by the specimen surface area.

Fractured surface micromorphology was examined under a stereomicroscope after the test at a magnification of ×25. Fracture modes were classified as follows: cohesive failure within MTA, cohesive failure within composite, adhesive failure that occurred at the MTA‒composite resin interface or mixed failure when the two modes of failure happened.

Results

In this study, the bond strength of MTA to SBC was evaluated. The results were compared with a conventional MBC. The shear bond strength test was performed to evaluate the bond strength.

The means and standard deviations of shear bond strength values between MTA and SBC and MBC are presented in Table 1. Applying SBC with its self-etch adhesive system on MTA showed the highest mean shear bond strength of 11.1±4.7 MPa while using MBC with a conventional self-etch adhesive system on MTA showed a mean shear bond strength of 10.5±3.5 MPa. Significant differences were found between the groups.

The mean differences of the groups were presented in Table 2. The shear bond strength of the test group (MTA + SBC) was significantly higher than that of the control group (MTA + MBC) (P=0.09).

Table 3 shows the fracture modes of the groups. For the test group (MTA + SBC), most of the cohesive failures were observed in MTA. Adhesive failures were associated with lower bond strength values. Cohesive failure within composite was not observed in any group. Mix failures were observed mostly in the control group.

Discussion

MTA was first described in the dental literature in 1993.⁴ In 1998, the use of MTA for clinical purposes was permitted by FDA. When used in the vital pulp treatment, MTA has certain advantages such as hard tissue formation by stimulating the release of cytokines in the osseous cells, dentinogenic effect on the pulp, antimicrobial properties, noncytotoxicity, and ensuring the vitality of the pulp after pulp capping and pulpotomy.⁵ Based on these advantages in vital pulp treatment, MTA has gained significant recognition recently. With the increasing use of MTA, however, the kind of permanent restoration material to be placed on it and the bond strength between the permanent restorative material and MTA have become critical issues to consider. However, very few studies are available regarding the bond strength of MTA and restorative materials in the dental literature.^6-8 These studies have evaluated the bond strength of MTA and methacrylate-based composite resin, glass-ionomer cement, compomers and different self-etch adhesive systems.

The most important reasons of failure in conventional methacrylate-based composite resin restorations are polymerization shrinkage which might lead to microleakage, tooth deformation, enamel cracks, secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity.⁹ Numerous studies have been performed in order to reduce polymerization shrinkage of composite resins, including modifying the content of resin and different application techniques.^10-19

The low-shrinkage silorane-based composite resin is a new class of resin compound used in dentistry. The polymerization process of this composite resin occurs via a cationic ring-opening reaction which results in a lower polymerization contraction, compared to that of the methacrylate-based composite resin which polymerizes via a radical addition reaction of their double bonds. The combination of the two chemical building blocks of siloxanes and oxiranes provides the biocompatible, hydrophobic and low-shrinkage silorane-based composite restorative system.

Bond strength tests are used to evaluate the clinical performance of restorative and adhesive systems.^20-22 Shear, tensile, microshear or microtensile tests are used to evaluate the bond strength of a composite resin.^23-30 Shear bond strength test was preferred in this study since it is a more reliable and practical method.^31-33

Higher shear bond strength values of ‘MTA + SBC’ than that ​​of ‘MTA + MBC’, which were used as control group, were found in this study. The lower shear bond strength of the control group, Clearfil SE bond and Filtek Z250, might be due to the inadequate effect of self-etch adhesive system. Clearfil SE Bond was used in the control group; the primer of this self-etch system consists of MDP (10-methacryloxydecyl dihydrogenphosphate). As already known, the acidic effect of MDP is brought about by interaction with water.³⁴ Thus, when MTA was hardening, due to water use, MDP could not exert enough of its acidic effect.³⁵ In addition to insufficient effect of the self-etch system used in the control group, MTA’s indented surface might have increased the micromechanical retention of low-shrinkage silorane-based composite resin.

The fracture surfaces were evaluated following the test. In the test group (MTA+SBC), the majority of the fractures were cohesive failures in MTA. Cohesive fractures have exhibited increased shear bond strength in the literature.^36-38 The cohesive fracture in MTA was confirmed by the results. The adhesive fracture did not occur in the test group.

Although less polymerization shrinkage is clinically advantageous, it raises some questions. Reducing shrinkage stress deteriorates the mechanical properties of composite resins, decreasing the degree of polymerization. When the degree of polymerization declines, the amount of the residual monomer that does not participate in the reactions increases. These residual monomers have adverse effects on the bond strength. In an ideal composite resin, low polymerization shrinkage is expected when creating a high polymerization degree. Accordingly, some studies evaluating the bond strength of silorane-based composite resin to teeth have shown that the amount of silorane-based composite resin was lower than the amount of conventional methacrylate-based composite resin.^39-41

An overall evaluation of the findings of this study revealed that silorane-based composite resin should be placed on MTA in the vital pulp therapy. However, due to the unsatisfactory results of studies assessing the performance of silorane-based composite resins and a lack of clinical studies, in vivo studies are needed before clinical use is adopted.

Acknowledgments

None.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests with regards to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

References

1. Lee SJ, Torabinejad M. Sealing ability of a mineral trioksit aggregate for repair of lateral root perforations. J Endod 1993;19:541-544.DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81282-3. [Crossref]
2. Godhi B, Tyagi R. Success rate of MTA pulpotomy on vital pulp of primary molars: A 3-year observational study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016; 9(3):222-227.doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1368. [Crossref]
3. Shabayek NM1, Hassan FM, Mobarak EH. Effect of using silorane-based resin composite for restoring conservative cavities on the changes in cuspal deflection. Oper Dent 2013;38(2):E1-8. doi: 10.2341/12-035-L. [Crossref]
4. Aminoshariae A, Hartwell GR, Moon PC. Placement of mineral trioxide aggregate using two different techniques. J Endod 2003; 29:679-82.doi: 10.1097/00004770-200310000-00017. [Crossref]
5. ViolaNV, Guerreiro-TanomaruJM, SilvaGF, Sasso-CerriE, Tanomaru-FilhoM, CerriPS.Biocompatibility of an experimental MTA sealerimplanted in theratsubcutaneous: Quantitativeandimmunohistochemicalevaluation.J Biomed Mater Res B: ApplBiomater 2012;100(7):1773-81.doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.32744. [Crossref]
6. Yesilyurt C, Yildirim T, Taşdemir T, Kusgoz A. Shear bond strength of conventional glass ionomer cements bound to mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod2009;35(10):1381-3.doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.06.003. [Crossref]
7. Bayrak Ş, Tunç ŞE, Şaroğlu I, Eğilmez T. Shear bond strengths of different adhesive systems to White mineral trioxide aggregate. Dent Mater 2009;28(1): 62-67.doi.org/10.4012/dmj.28.62. [Crossref]
8. Tunç ES, Sönmez IS, Bayrak S, Eğilmez T. Evaluating bond strength of a composite and a compomer to MTA. J Endod 2008;34:603-605.doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.02.026. [Crossref]
9. Ferracane JL. Resin-based composite performance: are there some things we can't predict?Dent Mater 2013;29(1):51-8. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.06.013. [Crossref]
10. Aw TC, Nicholls JI. Polymerization shrinkage of densely-filled resin composites. Oper Dent 2001;26(5):498-504.
11. Braga RR, Ballester RY, Ferracane JL. Factors involved in the development of polymerization shrinkage stress in resin-composites: a systematic review. Dent Mater 2005;21(10):962-970.doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.018. [Crossref]
12. Davidson CL, Feilzer AJ. Polymerization shrinkage and polymerization shrinkage stress in polymer-based restoratives. J Dent 1997;25(6):435-440.doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.018. [Crossref]
13. Dewaele M, Truffier-Boutry D, Devaux J, Leloup G. Volume contraction in photocured dental resins: The shrinkage-conversion relationship revisited. Dent Mater 2006;22:359-365.doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.03.014. [Crossref]
14. Sachdeva P, Goswami M, Singh D. FH. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength and nanoleakage of conventional and self-adhering flowable composites to primary teeth dentin. Contemp Clin Dent 2016;7(3):326-31. doi: 10.4103/0976-237X.188549. [Crossref]
15. Ilie N, Felten K, Trixner K, Hickel R, Kunzelmann KH. Shrinkage behavior of a resin-based composite irradiated with modern curing units. Dent Mater 2005;21(5):483-9.doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2004.08.007. [Crossref]
16. Labella R, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G. Polymerization shrinkage and elasticity of flowable composites and filled adhesives. Dent Mater 1999;15(2):128-137.
17. Loguercio AD, Reis A, Schroeder M, Balducci I, Versluis A, Ballester RY. Polymerization shrinkage: effects of boundary conditions and filling technique of resin composite restorations. J Dent 2004;32(6):459-470.doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2004.02.010. [Crossref]
18. Palin WM, Fleming GJ. Low-shrink monomers for dental restorations. Dent Update 2003;30(3):118-122.
19. Kuşgöz A, Tüzüner T, Ulker M, Kemer B, Saray O.Conversion degree, microhardness, microleakageandfluoriderelease of differentfissuresealants. J Mech BehavBiomed Mater 2010; 3(8):594-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2010.07.008. [Crossref]
20. Alperstein KS, Graver HT, Herold RC. Marginal leakage of glass-ionomer cement restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50(6):803-7.
21. El Araby AM, Talic YF. The effect of thermocycling on the adhesion of self etching adhesives on dental enamel and dentin. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007;8(2):017-024.
22. Van Meerbeek B, Inokoshi S, Braern M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Morphological aspects of the resin-dentin interdiffusion zone with different dentin adhesive systems. J Dent Res 1992;71:1530-40.doi: 10.1177/00220345920710081301. [Crossref]
23. Jensen ME. Chapter 3: Dentin bonding agents. In: Aschheim KW, Dale BG. Esthetic Dentistry. A clinical approach to techniques and materials, 2nd ed. St. Louis, Mosby-Year Book Inc, 2001:41-3.
24. Cardoso PEC, Braga RR, Carrilho MRO. Evaluation of micro-tensile shear and tensile tests determining the bond strength of three adhesive systems. Dent Mater 1998;14:394–398.
25. Fritz UB, Finger WJ, Uno S. Resin-modified glass ionomer cements: bonding to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 1996;12(3):161-166.
26. Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Douglas WH. Why do shear bond tests pull out dentin? J Dent Res 1997; 76(6): 1298-1307.doi: 10.1177/00220345970760061001. [Crossref]
27. Zhao SJ, Zhang L, Tang LH, Chen JH. Nanoleakage and microtensile bond strength at the adhesive-dentin interface after different etching times. Am J Dent 2010;23(6):335-40.
28. Salz U, Bock T. Testing adhesion of direct restoratives to dental hard tissue - a review. J Adhes Dent 2010;12(5):343-71. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a19741. [Crossref]
29. Abdalla AI. Microtensile and tensile bond strength of single-bottle adhesives: a new test method. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:379-384.doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01227.x. [Crossref]
30. Goracci C, Sadek FT, Monticelli F, Cardoso PE, Ferrari M. Influence of substrate, shape, and thickness on microtensile specimens’ structural integrity and their measured bond strengths. Dent Mater 2004;20(7):643-654.doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2003.08.009. [Crossref]
31. Okada H, Sadr A, Shimada Y, Tagami J. Micro-shear bond strength of current one-step adhesives to cementum and dentin. Am J Dent 2009;22(5):259-63.
32. Holderegger C, Sailer I, Schuhmacher C, Schlapfer R, Hammerle C, Fischer J. Shear bond strength of resin cements to human dentin. Dent Mater 2008; 24:944-950.doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2007.11.021. [Crossref]
33. Yaseen SM, Subba Reddy VV. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of two self-etching adhesives (sixth and seventh generation) on dentin of primary and permanent teeth: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2009;27(1):33-8.doi: 10.4103/0970-4388.50814. [Crossref]
34. Navarra CO1, Cadenaro M, Armstrong SR, Jessop J, Antoniolli F, Sergo V, Di Lenarda R, Breschi L. Degree of conversion of Filtek Silorane Adhesive System and Clearfil SE Bond within the hybrid and adhesive layer: an in situ Raman analysis. Dent Mater. 2009 Sep;25(9):1178-85. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.05.009. [Crossref]
35. Odabas ME, Cinar C, AkcaG, Araz I, Ulusu T, Yucel H. Short-term antimicrobial properties of mineral trioxide aggregate with incorporated silver-zeolite. Dental Traumatology 2011; 27(3): 189–194.doi: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.2011.00986.x. [Crossref]
36. Perdigão J, Lopes M, Geraldeli S, Lopes GC, Garcia-Godoy F. Effect of a sodium hypochlorite gel on dentin bonding. Dent Mater 2000;16: 311-323.doi: 10.1111/jerd.12289. [Crossref]
37. Mason PN, Ferrari M, Cagidiaco MC, Davidson, CL. Shear bond strength of four dentinal adhesives applied in vivo and in vitro. JDent 1996; 24: 217-222.
38. Al Qahtani MQ, Platt, JA. Moore BK., Cochran MA. The effect on shear bond strength of rewetting dry dentin with two desensitizers. Oper Dent 2003; 28: 287-296.
39. Magni E, Ferrari M, Papacchini F, Hickel R, Ilie N. Influence of ozone application on the repair strength of silorane-based and ormocer-based composites. Am J Dent 2010;23(5):260-4.
40. Tezvergil-Mutluay A, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK. Incremental layers bonding of silorane composite: the initial bonding properties. J Dent 2008;36(7):560-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.03.008. [Crossref]
41. Shawkat ES, Shortall AC, Addison O, Palin WM. Oxygen inhibition and incremental layer bond strengths of resin composites. Dent Mater 2009;25(11):1338-46.doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.06.00. [Crossref]