Advertisement

Current Oral Health Reports

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 229–233 | Cite as

Biodegradation of Resin-Dentin Bonds: a Clinical Problem?

  • Ricardo M. CarvalhoEmail author
  • Adriana P. Manso
Dental Restorative Materials (M Özcan, Section editor)
First Online:
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Dental Restorative Materials

Abstract

Biodegradation of the resin-dentin interfaces has been a focus of research over the last decade. Most studies show that degradation of both the collagen and the adhesive take place within short periods of time after bonding, and claim that such loss of structure at the interface opens opportunity for secondary caries initiation and progression thus leading to failure of the restoration. Open margins are further compromised by thermo-mechanical loading and enzymes produced by local bacteria. While marginal gaps appear to be unavoidable, it is remarkable that resin composite restorations can deliver successful clinical service for many years provided preventive and conservative measures to reduce the caries-risk of the patient are applied along with the restorative treatment. This review will look into the evidence from laboratory studies that investigated degradation of bonds and the consequences leading to clinical failure and balance that against the results of clinical trials that evidence the factors associated with the durability and clinical success of resin composite restorations.

Keywords

Resin composite restorations Degradation Secondary caries Marginal gap Clinical success Functional load 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by UBC Start-Up funds.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Ricardo M. Carvalho and Adriana P. Manso declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Mjör IA. The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand. 1997;55:58–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mjör IA, Toffenetti F. Secondary caries: a literature review with case reports. Quintessence Int. 2000;31:165–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, et al. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007;138:775–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Soncini JA, Maserejian NN, Trachtenberg F, et al. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings from the New England Children’s Amalgam Trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007;138:763–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tezvergil-Mutluay A, Pashley DH, Mutluay MM. Long-term durability of dental adhesives. Curr Oral Health Rep. 2015;2:174–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cenci MS, Pereira-Cenci T, Cury JA, et al. Relationship between gap size and dentine secondary caries formation assessed in a microcosm biofilm model. Caries Res. 2009;43:97–102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nassar HM, González-Cabezas C. Effect of gap geometry on secondary caries wall lesion development. Caries Res. 2011;45:346–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuper NK, Opdam NJM, Ruben JL, et al. Gap size and wall lesion development next to composite. J Dent Res. 2014;93 Suppl 7:108S–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kidd EA, Fejerskov O. What constitutes dental caries? Histopathology of carious enamel and dentin related to the action of cariogenic biofilms. J Dent Res. 2004;83(Spec Iss C):C35–C8.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gaengler P, Hoyer I, Montag R, et al. Micromorphological evaluation of posterior composite restorations: a 10 year report. J Oral Rehabil. 2004;31:991–1000.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kermanshahi S, Santerre JP, Cvitkovitch DG, et al. Biodegradation of resin-dentin interfaces increases bacterial microleakage. J Dent Res. 2010;89:996–1001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.••
    Bourbia M, Ma D, Cvitkovich DG, et al. Cariogenic bacteria degrade dental resin composites and adhesives. J Dent Res. 2013;92:989–94. This study demonstrates that esterases produced by S. mutans can degrade dental resin-based polymers.Google Scholar
  13. 13.••
    Khvostenko D, Salehi S, Naleway SE, et al. Cyclic mechanical loading promotes bacterial penetration along composite restoration marginal gaps. Dent Mater. 2015;31:702–10. This study demonstrates that mechanical loading of restorations enhances penetration of bacteria into marginal gaps. It is the first study to simultaneously evaluate the effects of biofilm, gaps and load to address the mechanism of secondary caries.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Turkistani A, Nakashima S, Shimada Y, et al. Microgaps and demineralization progress around composite restorations. J Dent Res. 2015;94:1070–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Donassollo TA, Cenci MS, et al. 22-year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. Dent Mater. 2011;27:955–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van de Sande FH, Opdam NJ, Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, et al. Patient risk factors’ influence on survival of posterior composites. J Dent Res. 2013;92(Suppl):78S–83S.Google Scholar
  17. 17.••
    Opdam NJM, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014;93:943–9. This study claims to be the first to apply a meta-analysis approach to review raw data from clinical trials of composite restorations.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pashley DH, Tay FR, Yiu C, et al. Collagen degradation by host-derived enzymes during aging. J Dent Res. 2004;83:216–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pashley DH, Tay FR, Breschi L, et al. State of the art etch-and-rinse adhesives. Dent Mater. 2011;27:1–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, et al. State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater. 2011;27:17–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tjäderhane L, Nascimento FD, Breschi L, et al. Optimizing dentin bond durability: control of collagen degradation by matrix metalloproteinases and cysteine cathepsins. Dent Mater. 2013;29:116–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mozner N, Salz U, Zimmerman J. Chemical aspects of self-etching enamel-dentin adhesives. a systematic review. Dent Mater. 2005;21:895–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ito S, Hashimoto M, Wadgaonkar B, et al. Effects of resin hydrophilicity on water sorption and changes in modulus of elasticity. Biomaterials. 2005;26:6449–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yiu C, King NM, Carrilho MR, et al. Effect of resin hydrophilicity and temperature on water sorption of dental adhesive resins. Biomaterials. 2005;26:6863–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Manso AP, Bedran-Russo AK, Suh B, et al. Mechanical stability of adhesives under water storage. Dent Mater. 2009;25:744–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Spencer P, Ye Q, Park J, et al. Adhesive/dentin interface: the weak link in the composite restoration. Ann Biomed Eng. 2010;38:1989–2003.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sano H, Yoshiyama M, Ebisu S, et al. Comparative SEM and TEM observations of nanoleakage within the hybrid layer. Oper Dent. 1995;20:160–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Okuda M, Pereira PN, Nakajima M, et al. Relationship between nanoleakage and long-term durability of dentin bonds. Oper Dent. 2001;26:482–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Armstrong SR, Vargas MA, Chung I, et al. Resin-dentin interfacial ultrastructure and microtensile dentin bond strength after five-year water storage. Oper Dent. 2004;29:705–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hebling J, Pashley DH, Tjäderhane L, et al. Chlorhexidine arrests subclinical degradation of dentin hybrid layers in vivo. J Dent Res. 2005;84:741–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Carrilho MR, Geraldeli S, Tay FR, et al. In vivo preservation of the hybrid layer by chlorhexidine. J Dent Res. 2007;86:529–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Carvalho RM, Manso AP, Geraldeli S, Tay FR, Pashley DH. Durability of bonds and clinical success of adhesive restorations. Dent Mater. 2012;28:72–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Totiam P, Gonzales-Cabezas C, Fontana MR, et al. A new in vitro model to study the relationship of gap size and secondary caries. Caries Res. 2007;41:467–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Diercke K, Lussi A, Kersten T, et al. Isolated development of inner (wall) caries like lesions in a bacterial-based in vitro model. Clin Oral Investig. 2009;13:439–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Thomas RZ, Ruben JL, ten Bosch JJ, et al. Approximal secondary caries lesion progression, a 20-week in situ study. Caries Res. 2007;41:399–405.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rezwani-Kaminski T, Kamann W, Gaengler P. Secondary caries susceptibility of teeth with long-term performing composite restorations. J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29:1131–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Frankenberger R, Tay FR. Self-etch vs etch-and-rinse adhesives: effect of thermo-mechanical fatigue loading on marginal quality of bonded resin composite restorations. Dent Mater. 2005;21:397–412.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Campos PE, Barceleiro MO, Sampaio-Filho HR. Evaluation of the cervical integrity during occlusal loading of class II restorations. Oper Dent. 2008;33:59–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Aggarwal V, Logani A, Jain V, et al. Effect of cyclic loading on marginal adaptation and bond strength in direct vs. indirect class II MO composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2008;33:587–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, et al. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent. 2004;29:481–508.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Heintze SD, Rousson V. Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations—a meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2012;14:407–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA, et al. 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res. 2010;89:1063–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mjör IA. Clinical diagnosis of recurrent caries. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005;136:1426–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rasines Alcaraz MG, Vietz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, et al. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;3, CD005620.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chauhan R. Good short-term survival rates for posterior resin composite restorations. Evid Based Dent. 2015;16:114–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Oral Biological and Medical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Division of BiomaterialsThe University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options