Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2007.32.3.208

A STUDY ON FRACTURAL BEHAVIOR OF DENTIN-RESIN INTERFACE  

Ryu, Gil-Joo (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Division of Dentistry, Graduate of Kyung Hee University)
Choi, Gi-Woon (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Division of Dentistry, Graduate of Kyung Hee University)
Park, Sang-Jin (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Division of Dentistry, Graduate of Kyung Hee University)
Choi, Kyung-Kyu (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Division of Dentistry, Graduate of Kyung Hee University)
Publication Information
Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics / v.32, no.3, 2007 , pp. 208-221 More about this Journal
Abstract
The fracture toughness test is believed as a clinically relevant method for assessing the fracture resistance of the dentinal restoratives. The objectives of this study were to measure the fracture toughness $(K_{1C})$ and microtensile bond strength of dentin-resin composite interface and compare their relationship for their use in evaluation of the integrity of the dentin-resin bond. A minimum of six short-rod specimens for fracture toughness test and fifteen specimens for microtensile bond strength test was fabricated for each group of materials used. After all specimens storing for 24 hours in distilled water at $37^{\circ}C$, they were tensile-loaded with an EZ tester universal testing machin. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA and Tukey's test at the 95% confidence level, Pearson's coefficient was used to verify the correlation between the mean of fracture toughness and microtensile bond strength. FE-SEM was employed on fractured surface to describe the crack propagation. Fracture toughness value of Clearfil SE Bond (SE) was the highest, followed by Adper Single Bond 2 (SB), OptiBond Solo (OB), ONE-STEP PLUS (0S), ScotchBond Multi-purpose (SM) and there was significant difference between SE and other 4 groups (p < 0.05). There were, however, no significant difference among SB, OB, OS, SM (p > 0.05). Microtensile bond strength of SE was the highest, followed by SB, OB, SM, OS and OS only showed significant lower value (p < 0.05). There was no correlation between fracture toughness and microtensile bond strength values. FE-SEM examination revealed that dentin bonding agent showed different film thickness and different failure pattern according to the film thickness. From the limited results of this study, it was noted that there was statistically no correlation between K1C and ${\mu}TBS$. We can conclude that for obtaining the reliability of bond strength test of dentin bonding agent, we must pay more attention to the test procedure and its profound scrutiny.
Keywords
Fracture toughness; Microtensile bond strength; Short-rod specimen; Dentin-resin composite interface; FE-SEM; Dentin bonding agent;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Soderholm KJM. Correlation of in vivo and in vitro performance of adhesive restorative materials : a report of the ASC MD156 Task Group on Test Methods for the Adhesion of Restorative Materials. Dent Mater 7:74-83. 1991   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Tyas MJ. Guest editorial : reliability and validity in dental materials testing. J Dent Res 70:1471. 1991
3 van Noort R. Cardew GE, Howard IC, Noroozi S. The effect of local interfacial geometry on the measurement of the tensile bone strength to dentin. J Dent 70: 889-93, 1991   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Griffith AA. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Phil Trans Series A 221: 163-198, 1920
5 Bubsey RT, Munz D, Pierce WS, Shannon JL. Compliance calibration of the short rod chevron-notch specimen for fracture toughness testing of brittle material. Int J Frac 125-133, 1982
6 Chung SM, Yap AU, Tsai KT, Yap FL. Elastic modulus of resin-based dental restorative materials : a micro indentation approach. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 72(2) :246-253, 2005   PUBMED
7 Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Shirai K, Inoue S, Shiatani H. Lambrechts P. Chemical bonding potential of adhesive materials to hydroxyapatite. J Dent Res 82(Special Issue), 2003
8 Ai H and Nagai M. Effect of the adhesive layer thickness on the fracture toughness of dental adhesive resin. Dent Mater J 19(2): 153-163, 2000   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
9 Nunes MF, Swift EJ, Perdigao J. Effects of adhesive composition on micro tensile bond strength to human dentin. Am J Dent 14(6) :340-343, 2001   PUBMED
10 Nakabayashi N. Resin reinforced dentin due to infiltration of monomers into the dentin at the adhesive interface. J Dent Mater 1:78-81. 1982
11 Van Meerbeek B, Dhem A, Goret-Nicaise M, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Comparative SEM and TEM examination of the ultrastructure of the resindentin interdiffusion zone. J Dent Res 72:495-501. 1993   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
12 Van Meerbeek B, Mohrbacher H. Celis JP, Roos JR. Braem M, Lambrechts p, Vanherle G : Chemical characterization of the resin-dentin interface by microRaman spectroscopy. J Dent Res 72:1423-1428, 1993   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
13 Eick JD, Miller RG, Robinson SJ, Bowles CQ, Gutshall PL. Chappelow CC. Quantitative analysis of the dentin adhesive interface by Auger spectroscopy. J Dent Res 75: 1027-1033. 1996   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Pashley DH, Sano H, Ciucchi B, Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM. Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents: a reviews. Dent Mater 11: 117-125, 1995   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Heymann HO, Sturdevant JR, Bayne S, Wilder AD, Sluder TB, Brunson WD. Examining tooth flexure effects on cervical restorations : A two-year clinical study. J Am Dent Asso 122:41-47, 1991   DOI
16 Duke ES, Robbins JW, Schwartz RS, Summitt JB, Conn LJ. Clinical and interfacial laboratory evaluation of a bonding agent in cervical abrasions. Am J Dent 7:307-311. 1994
17 van Dijken JWV. Clinical evaluation of four dentin bonding agents in class V abrasion lesions : a fouryear follow-up. Dent mater 10:319-324, 1994   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Kelly JR. Perspectives on strength. Dent Mater 11(2): 103-110, 1995   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Eick JD, Robinson SJ, Chappell RP, Cobb CM, Spencer P. The dentinal surface ; its influence on dentinal adhesion. Part III. Quint Int 24:571-582, 1993
20 Burke FJT and McCaughey AD. The four generations of dentin bonding. Am J Dent 8:88-92, 1995   PUBMED
21 Ferracane JL. Antonio RC, Matsumoto H. Variables affecting the fracture toughness of dental composites. J Dent Res 66(6):1140-1145, 1987   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
22 Frankenberger R. Lopes M, Perdigao J, Ambrose WW, Rosa BT. The use of flowable composites as filled adhesives. Dent Mater 18(3): 227-238, 2002   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Retief DH, Wendt SL, Bradley EL. Effect of adhesive thickness on the shear bond strength of Scotchbond 2/Silux to dentin. Am J Dent 2(6):341-344, 1989   PUBMED
24 Retief DH. Standardizing laboratory adhesion tests. Am J Dent 4:231-236, 1991   PUBMED
25 Wang CT and Pilliar RM. Bond cement bonding interfacial fracture toughness determination. Clin Mater 4: 135-153, 1989   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Lloyd CH and Mitchell L. The fracture toughness of tooth coloured restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 11:257-272, 1984   DOI
27 Ferracane JL and Berge HX. Fracture toughness of experimental dental composites aged in ethanol. J Dent Res 74(7):1418-1423, 1995   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Goldman M. Fracture properties of composite and glass ionomer dental restorative materials. J Biomed Mater Res 19:771-783, 1985   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Rueggeberg FA and Margeson DH. The effect of oxygen inhibition on the unfilled/filled composite system. J Dent Res 69: 1652-1658, 1990   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
30 Swift EJ, Perdigao J, Heymann HO. Bonding to enamel and dentin : a brief history and state of the art. Quint Int 26:95-110, 1995
31 Tam LE, Khoshand S, Pilliar RM. Fracture resistance of dentin-composite interfaces using different adhesive resin layers. J Dent 29(3) :217-225, 2001   DOI   ScienceOn
32 Van Meerbeek B. lnokoshi S. Braem M. Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Morphological aspects of the resin-dentin interdiffusion zone with different dentin adhesive systems. J Dent Res 7:1530-1540, 1992
33 Charpell RP, Eick JD, Theisen FC, Carracho AJL. Shear bond strength and scanning electron microscopic observation of current dentinal adhesives. Quint lnt 22:831-839, 1991
34 Beaumont PWR and Young RJ. Slow crack growth in acrylic bone cement. J Biomed Mater Res 9:423-439, 1975   DOI   ScienceOn
35 Miyazaki M, Ando S, Hinoura K, Onose H. Moore BK. Influence of filler addition to bonding agents on shear bond strength to bovine dentin. Dent Mater 11(4) :234-238, 1995   DOI   ScienceOn
36 DeGroot R, Van Elst HC, Peters MC. Fracturemechanics parameters of the composite-enamel bond. J Dent Res 69:31-35, 1990   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
37 van Noort R. Noroozi S, Howard IC, Cardew G. A critique of bond strength measurements. J Dent 17: 6117, 1989
38 Kim KH, Park JH, Imai Y, Kishi T. Microfracture mechanisms of dental resin composites containing spherically-shaped filler particles. J Dent Res 73(2) :499-504. 1994   DOI   PUBMED
39 Barker LM. A simplified method for measuring plane strain fracture toughness. Eng Fract Mech 9:361-369, 1977   DOI   ScienceOn
40 Van Meerbeek B, Peumans M. Verschueren M, Gladys S, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Clinical status of ten dentin adhesive systems. J Dent Res 73:1690-1702, 1994   DOI   PUBMED
41 Leloup G, D' hoore W, Bouter D, Degrange M, Vreven J. Meta-analytical Review of Factors Involves in Dentin Adherence. J Dent Res 80(7): 1605-1614, 2001   DOI   ScienceOn
42 Kruger MB. Raman mapping of the dentin/adhesive interface. Appl Spectrosc 50:1500-1504, 1996   DOI   ScienceOn
43 Jendresen MD, Allen EP, Bayne SC, Hansson TL, Klooster J, Preston JD. Report of the committee on scientific investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 68: 137-190, 1992   DOI   ScienceOn
44 Charalambides PG, Cao HC, Lund J, Evans AG. Development of a test method for measuring the mixed mode fracture resistance of bimaterial interfaces. Mech Mater 8:269-283, 1990   DOI   ScienceOn
45 Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Adhesion to Enamel and Dentin: Current Status and Future Challenges. Oper Dent 28(3) :215-235, 2003   PUBMED
46 Sorenson JA and Dixit NV. In vitro shear bond strength of dentin adhesives. Int J Prosthodont 4: 117-125, 1991   PUBMED
47 Fujishima A and Ferracane JL. Comparison of four modes of fracture toughness testing for dental composites. Dent Mater 12:38-43, 1996   DOI   ScienceOn
48 Lin CP and Douglas WH. Failure mechanisms at the human dentin-resin interface : A fracture mechanics approach. J Biomechanics 27:1037-1047, 1994   DOI   ScienceOn
49 Young RJ and Beaumont PWR. Failure of brittle polymers by slow crack growth. Part 2. Failure processes in a silica particle-filled epoxy resin composite. J Mater Sci 10: 1343-1350, 1975   DOI
50 Lloyd CH and Adamson M. The development of fracture toughness and fracture strength in posterior restorative materials. Dent Mater 3:225-231. 1987   DOI   ScienceOn
51 Tam LE and Pilliar RM. Fracture toughness of dentin/resin-composite adhesive interfaces. J Dent Res 72:953-959, 1993   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
52 Tay FR. Gwinnett AJ, Pang KM, Wei SHY. Structural evidence of a sealed tissue interface with a total-etch wet-bonding technique in vivo. J Dent Res 73:629-636, 1994   DOI   PUBMED
53 Hertzberg RW. Deformation and fracture mechanics of engineering materials. 2nd ed., J. Wiley, New York, 1983
54 Mecholsky JJ. Fracture mechanics principles. Dent Mater 11(2): 111-112, 1995   DOI   ScienceOn
55 Finger WJ, Lee K-S, Podszun W. Monomers with low oxygen inhibition as enamel/dentin adhesives. Dent Mater 12: 256-261. 1996   DOI   ScienceOn
56 Tantbirojn D, Cheng YS, Versluis A, Hodges JS, Douglas WH. Nominal Shear or Fracture Mechanics in the Assessment of Composite-Dentin Adhesion? J Dent Res 79(1) :41-48, 2000   DOI   ScienceOn
57 Yamaguchi R, Powers JM, Dennison JB. Parameters affecting in vitro bond strength of composites to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 5:153-156, 1989   DOI   ScienceOn