|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Tensile Strength of Thin Resin Composite Layers as a Function of Layer Thickness
D. Alster
Department of Dental Materials Science, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, ACTA, Louwesweg 1, 1066 EA Amsterdam, The Netherlands
A.J. Feilzer
Department of Dental Materials Science, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, ACTA, Louwesweg 1, 1066 EA Amsterdam, The Netherlands
A.J. De Gee
Department of Dental Materials Science, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, ACTA, Louwesweg 1, 1066 EA Amsterdam, The Netherlands
C.L. Davidson
Department of Dental Materials Science, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, ACTA, Louwesweg 1, 1066 EA Amsterdam, The Netherlands
As a rule, cast restorations do not allow for free curing contraction of the resin composite luting cement. In a rigid situation, the resulting contraction stress is inversely proportional to the resin layer thickness. Adhesive technology has demonstrated, however, that thin joints may be considerably stronger than thicker ones. To investigate the effects of layer thickness and contraction stress on the tensile strength of resin composite joints, we cured cylindrical samples of a chemically initiated resin composite (Clearfil F2) in restrained conditions and subsequently loaded them in tension. The samples had a diameter of 5.35 mm and thicknesses of 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 µm, 1.4 mm, or 2.7 mm. None of the samples fractured due to contraction stress prior to tensile loading. Tensile strength decreased gradually from 62 ± 2 MPa for the 50-µm layer to 31 ± 4 MPa for the 2.7-mm layer. The failures were exclusively cohesive in resin for layers between 50 and 400 um thick. Between 500 and 700 um, the failures were cohesive or mixed adhesive/cohesive, while the 1.4- and 2.7-mm layers always failed in a mixed adhesive/cohesive mode. For the resin composite tested, the contraction stress did not endanger the cohesive strength. It was concluded that if adhesion to tooth structure were improved, thinner adhesive joints might enhance the clinical success of luted restorations.
Key Words: resin composites • tensile strength • layer thickness
REFERENCES
- Aksu MN, Powers JM, Lorey RE, Kolling JN (1987). Variables affecting bond strength of resin-bonded bridge cements. Dent Mater 3:26-28.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Chappell RP, Eick JD ( 1994). Shear bond strength and scanning electron microscopic observation of six current dentinal adhesives. Quint Int 25:359-368.
- Davidson CL, Van Zeghbroeck L., Feilzer AJ (1991). Destructive stresses in adhesive luting cements. J Dent Res 70:880-882.
- Diaz-Amold AM, Williams VD, Aquilino SA (1991). The effect of film thickness on the tensile bond strength of a prosthodontic adhesive. J Prosthet Dent 66:614-618.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Evans LB, Powers JM (1985). Factors affecting in vitro bond strength of no-mix orthodontic cements. Am J Orthod 87:508-512. Feilzer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL (1987). Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoratives. J Dent Res 66:1636-1639.
- Jordan RE, Suzuki M., Sills PS, Gratton DR, Gwinnett AJ (1978). Temporary fixed partial dentures fabricated by means of the acid-etch resin technique: A report of 86 cases followed for up to three years. J Am Dent Assoc 96:994-1001. Jost-Brinkmann PG, Schiffer A. (1992). The effect of adhesive-layer thickness on bond strength. J Clin Orthod 26:718-720. Lasoski SW, Kraus G. (1955). Polymer to metal adhesion. The system polyvinyl acetate-steel. J Polym Sci 18:359-376. Mackay F. (1992). The effect of adhesive type and thickness on bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Br J Orthod 19:35-39. Meissner HP, Baldauf GH (1951). Strength behavior of adhesive bonds. Trans ASME 73:697-704.
- Meissner HP, Merrill EW (1948). Some factors affecting adhesive bond formation. ASTM Bull 151:80-83.
- Musil R., Tiller HJ (1984). Die Silanisierung der SiOx-C Schicht. In: Die Haftung von Dental-Kunststoffen auf Metalloberflachen. Musil R, Tiller HJ, editors. Wehrheim, Germany: Heraeus Kulzer GmbH.
- Thordrup M., Isidor F., Horsted-Bindslev P. (1994). Comparison of marginal fit and microleakage of ceramic and composite inlays. J Dent 22:147-153.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Verzijden Cwgjm, Feilzer AJ, Creugers NHJ, Davidson CL (1992). The influence of polymerization shrinkage of resin cements on bonding to metal. J Dent Res 71:410-413. Wiltshire WA, Ferreira MR, Nel JC, van Wyk PJ (1987). Tensile bond strength of resin luting cements for resin-bonded bridges to etched enamel. Dent Mater 3:56-59.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Zidan O., Asmussen E., Jorgensen KD (1980). Correlation between tensile and bond strength of composite resins. Scand J Dent Res 88:348-351.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 74, No. 11,
1745-1748 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/00220345950740110501
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
S. Bouillaguet
BIOLOGICAL RISKS OF RESIN-BASED MATERIALS TO THE DENTIN-PULP COMPLEX
Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine,
January 1, 2004;
15(1):
47 - 60.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
