Difference in bond strength according to filling techniques and cavity walls in box-type occlusal composite resin restoration

Abstract

Bond strength depends on characteristics of bonding surface and restorative technique. The majority of studies dealing with dentin bond strength were carried out on flat bonding surface, therefore, difference of bond strength between axial wall and pulpal wall is not clear yet. This study evaluated bonding difference between cavity walls in class I composite resin restoration with different filling techniques. Twenty extracted caries-free human third molars were used. Cavities were prepared in 6 4 3 mm box-type and divided into four groups according to filling technique and bonding surface: Group I; bulk filling - pulpal wall, Group II; bulk filling - axial wall, Group III; incremental filling - pulpal wall, Group IV; incremental filling - axial wall. Cavities were filled with Filtek (3M/ESPE., USA) and Clearfill SE (Kuraray, Japan). After 24 hour-storage in water, the resin bonded teeth were sectioned bucco-lingualy at the center of cavity. Specimens were vertically sectioned into 1.0 1.0 mm thick serial sticks perpendicular to the bond surface using a low-speed diamond saw (Accutom 50, Struers, Copenhagen, Denmark) under water cooling. The trimmed specimens were then attached to the testing device and in turn, was placed in a universal testing machine (EZ test, Shimadzu Co., Kyoto, Japan) for micro-tensile testing at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. The results obtained were statistically analyzed using 2-way ANOVA and t-test at a significance level of 95%. The results were as follows: 1. There was no significant difference between bulk filling and incremental filling. 2. There was no significant difference between pulpal wall and axial wall, either. Within the limit of this study, it was concluded that microtensile bond strength was not affected by the filling technique and the site of cavity walls.