• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.405-412
• /
• 2008

This study was aimed to investigate whether an oxygen inhibition layer (OIL) is essential for the interfacial bonding between resin composite layers or not. A composite (Z-250, 3M ESPE) was filled in two layers using two aluminum plate molds with a hole of 3.7 mm diameter. The surface of first layer of cured composite was prepared by one of five methods as followings, thereafter second layer of composite was filled and cured: Group 1 - OIL is allowed to remain on the surface of cured composite; Group 2 - OIL was removed by rubbing with acetone-soaked cotton; Group 3 - formation of the OIL was inhibited using a Mylar strip; Group 4 - OIL was covered with glycerin and light-cured; Group 5 (control) - composite was bulk-filled in a layer. The interfacial shear bond strength between two layers was tested and the fracture modes were observed. To investigate the propagation of polymerization reaction from active area having a photo-initiator to inactive area without the initiator, a flowable composite (Aelite Flow) or an adhesive resin (Adhesive of ScotchBond Multipurpose) was placed over an experimental composite (Exp_Com) which does not include a photoinitiator and light-cured. After sectioning the specimen, the cured thickness of the Exp_Com was measured. The bond strength of group 2, 3 and 4 did not show statistically significant difference with group 1. Groups 3 and 4 were not statistically significant different with control group 5. The cured thicknesses of Exp_Com under the flowable resin and adhesive resin were 20.95 (0.90) urn and 42.13 (2.09), respectively.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.37 no.3
• /
• pp.298-307
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study was to assess the effect on oxygen inhibition layer(OIL) for the interfacial bonding between resin composite layers, including shear bond strength, fracture modes and degree of conversion. The first layer of specimen was filled with Z-250(shade A3) and was cured for 40s. The second layer of specimen was filled with same composite(shade A1) and was cured for 40s. The first layer of specimens for each group were prepared by methods as followings. Control(curing in atmospheric air), Group1(curing against Mylar strip), Group2(scrubbed with a acetone-soaked cotton), Group3(using Tescera light cup), Group4(using Tescera heat cup), Group5(stored in disti1led water for 30days at $37^{\circ}C$), Group6 (using bonding agent). The results were as follows: 1. There was no statistically significant different shear bond strength between control and group 1(p>0.05). 2. Group 2 showed significantly lower shear bond strength than control and group 1(p<0.05). 3. The observation of the fracture surface leads to the evidence that a major difference occurs in the case of control, group1 and group 3 samples which break mainly cohesively while the other groups break in majority adhesively. 4. The results of FTIR showed that the degree of conversion was the highest in group 2 and the lowest in control group(p<0.05). It can be concluded that an OIL is not necessary for bonding with composite resin. But if a reduced critical amount of the unreacted monomer is present, it was detrimental to bonding additional layers of composite. Further study, such as the quantitative analysis of the unreacted monomer are required.