Wall-lesion development in gaps: The role of the adhesive bonding material

Abstract

ObjectivesThis study evaluated the caries wall lesion development in different composite–dentin interfaces to investigate if the presence and location of two bonding materials in the gaps influence wall caries lesion development. MethodsFourteen volunteers wore a modified occlusal splint containing samples with four different interfaces: perfect bonding/no gap, or with a fixed gap (234±30μm) with either no bonding material, bonding material (Clearfil Protect Bond–PB and Clearfil SE Bond–SE) on dentin or on composite. Eight times a day, the samples were dipped in 20% sucrose solution for 10min, during 3 weeks. The samples were imaged with microradiography (T-WIM), and lesion depth (LD) and mineral loss (ML) were measured. The data were analysed with paired t-test. ResultsThe perfect bonding group did not show any caries wall lesion development, whereas all other interfaces did. The interface with bonding on dentin did not show significantly different wall lesion development from the interface with no material. However, when bonding was present on composite, both LD and ML were significantly higher than both other gap conditions (p-values<0.05). A difference between the bonding material was only seen when applied on composite: PB showed less ML than SE (p=0.01). ConclusionsThe presence of bonding on the composite side of a composite–dentin gap increased wall lesion development in situ. Clinical significanceThe presence and location of an adhesive bonding material in the composite–dentin gaps plays a role on the wall caries lesion development.