Microscopic inspection of the adhesive interface of composite onlays after cementation on low loading: an in vitro study

• Autor(a) principal: Magalhães, Tiago
• Data de Publicação: 2023
• Outros Autores: Fidalgo-Pereira, Rita, Torres, Orlanda, Carvalho, Óscar, Silva, Filipe S., Henriques, Bruno, Özcan, Mutlu, Souza, Júlio C. M.
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.14/40896
• topic: Cementation; Dentin; Onlay; Resin cement; Resin composite

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the layer thickness and microstructure of traditional resin-matrix cements and flowable resin-matrix composites at dentin and enamel to composite onlay interfaces after cementation on low loading magnitude. Materials and Methods: Twenty teeth were prepared and conditioned with an adhesive system for restoration with resin-matrix composite onlays manufactured by CAD-CAM. On cementation, tooth-to-onlay assemblies were distributed into four groups, including two traditional resin-matrix cements (groups M and B), one flowable resin-matrix composite (group G), and one thermally induced flowable composite (group V). After the cementation procedure, assemblies were cross-sectioned for inspection by optical microscopy at different magnification up to ×1000. Results: The layer thickness of resin-matrix cementation showed the highest mean values at around 405 µm for a traditional resin-matrix cement (group B). The thermally induced flowable resin-matrix composites showed the lowest layer thickness values. The resin-matrix layer thickness revealed statistical differences between traditional resin cement (groups M and B) and flowable resin-matrix composites (groups V and G) (p < 0.05). However, the groups of flowable resin-matrix composites did not reveal statistical differences (p < 0.05). The thickness of the adhesive system layer at around 7 µm and 12 µm was lower at the interfaces with flowable resin-matrix composites when compared to the adhesive layer at resin-matrix cements, which ranged from 12 µm up to 40 µm. Conclusions: The flowable resin-matrix composites showed adequate flowing even though the loading on cementation was performed at low magnitude. Nevertheless, significant variation in thickness of the cementation layer was noticed for flowable resin-matrix composites and traditional resin-matrix cements that can occur in chair-side procedures due to the clinical sensitivity and differences in rheological properties of the materials.