Research Paper
Fatigue of the resin–enamel bonded interface and the mechanisms of failure

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.02.017Get rights and content

Abstract

The durability of adhesive bonds to enamel and dentin and the mechanisms of degradation caused by cyclic loading are important to the survival of composite restorations. In this study a novel method of evaluation was used to determ.ine the strength of resin–enamel bonded interfaces under both static and cyclic loading, and to identify the mechanisms of failure. Specimens with twin interfaces of enamel bonded to commercial resin composite were loaded in monotonic and cyclic 4-point flexure to failure within a hydrated environment. Results for the resin–enamel interface were compared with those for the resin composite (control) and values reported for resin–dentin adhesive bonds. Under both modes of loading the strength of the resin–enamel interface was significantly (p≤0.0001) lower than that of the resin composite and the resin–dentin bonded interface. Fatigue failure of the interface occurred predominately by fracture of enamel, adjacent to the interface, and not due to adhesive failures. In the absence of water aging or acid production of biofilms, the durability of adhesive bonds to enamel is lower than that achieved in dentin bonding.

Introduction

In the field of restorative dentistry, bond strength testing has been used to characterize the adhesion of restorative materials to dentin and enamel since the invention of acid etching (Buonocore, 1955). Micro-tensile and micro-shear tests are the primary approaches for investigating the potential performance of new dental materials and/or the bonding procedures (Pashley et al., 1999, Spencer et al., 2010, De Munck et al., 2012). There are several variations of these two methods, and a number of reviews have been presented to discuss their qualities and the advantages of particular configurations (e.g. Armstrong et al., 2010, Braga et al., 2010, Scherrer et al., 2010). The bond strength obtained using these techniques has been adopted as a metric of performance, and high strength is considered to be indicative of longevity in the oral environment. But there are concerns regarding the applicability of these methods, and their relevance toward understanding the true causes of clinical failures (Van Meerbeek et al., 2003, Kelly et al., 2012, Roulet, 2012, Söderholm, 2012). Perhaps the prevailing concern is that the results of in vitro experiments do not reflect the reality of failures in vivo, and there is little correlation to clinical behavior (Ferracane, 2013).

A load-bearing restoration bonded to dentin and enamel must resist damage over many years of function. Cyclic stresses transmitted across the resin adhesive and hybrid layers may cause degradation of the interface by fatigue (Spencer et al., 2010, Pashley et al., 2011). Yet, in comparison to quasi-static loading, the influence of cyclic loading to the adhesive interface has received limited attention. Ruse et al. (1995) reported one of the earliest studies to evaluate the strength of resin–enamel bonds in response to cyclic loading. Since then, surprisingly few studies have experimentally examined fatigue of the resin–enamel interface (De Munck et al., 2005, Erickson et al., 2006, Erickson et al., 2008, Erickson et al., 2009a, Barkmeier et al., 2009). Reported studies on fatigue properties of the resin–dentin interface are equally scant (Drummond et al., 1996, Frankenberger et al., 1999, Frankenberger et al., 2003, Frankenberger et al., 2005, De Munck et al., 2005, Soappman et al., 2007, Staninec et al., 2008a, Staninec et al., 2008b, Belli et al., 2010). In fact, a quick survey of the literature shows that more manuscripts are published on micro-tensile testing in one month than the total number of studies reported on fatigue degradation of the bonded interface overall!

Two qualities summarize the findings of prior studies on the fatigue strength of adhesive bonds to dentin and enamel. Firstly, the fatigue strength of the interface is lower than that found in monotonic testing, with ratios of fatigue to static strength ranging from roughly 0.35 to 0.6. Secondly, adhesive bonds to dentin appear to be more durable than those to enamel (De Munck et al., 2005). One potential limitation of the reported studies on enamel bonding is that cyclic loading has been limited to 1×105 cycles or lower. Considering that there are several thousands cycles of mastication per day (Anusavice, 2003), the aforementioned duration of previous fatigue evaluations is much less than one year of oral function. In addition, previous studies on enamel bonding have been conducted primarily using a cyclic shear configuration, whereas the bonded interface appears least durable in cyclic tension (Staninec et al., 2008a).

A recent study on the durability of resin–dentin adhesive interfaces adopted the use of a novel twin bonded interface specimen subjected to cyclic flexure loading (Mutluay et al., 2013a). Fatigue failures occurred by cyclic tension and the ratio of the apparent endurance limit to the ultimate strength of this interface was 0.26. That estimate is essentially half that reported for cyclic shear loading of enamel. If cyclic tensile stresses are indeed most detrimental (Staninec et al., 2008a), then the durability of enamel bonds should be assessed under that mode of loading. Therefore, the present study adopted a novel approach to evaluate the strength of resin–enamel adhesive bonds under both monotonic and cyclic flexure loading. The objectives were to characterize the interface strength under the two modes of loading, distinguish the mechanisms of degradation and failure, and compare the results with those achieved for dentin bonding.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

Bonded interface specimens were prepared from the enamel of caries-free human third molars. All extracted teeth were obtained with record of patient age (18≤age≤30) and gender from participating clinics in Maryland according to a protocol approved by the University of Maryland Baltimore County (#Y04DA23151). The teeth were stored in Hank's Balanced Salt Solution (HBSS) for less than 1 month, and then sectioned using a computer-controlled grinder (Chevalier Smart-H818II, Chevalier Machinery,

Results

The strength distributions of the resin–enamel interface, resin composite control and resin–dentin bonded interface specimens obtained from monotonic loading to failure are shown in Fig. 4. All three responses are shown in terms of the average and standard deviation and were obtained using the exact same specimen configuration and loading conditions. According to the one-way ANOVA, the average flexural strength of the resin–enamel interface (19.9±3.9 MPa) was significantly lower (p≤0.000) than

Discussion

An experimental evaluation on the strength and durability of the resin–enamel bonded interface was conducted. Although restored teeth undergo cyclic loading during mastication, few studies have assessed the fatigue behavior of enamel bonds (De Munck et al., 2005, Erickson et al., 2006, Erickson et al., 2008, Erickson et al., 2009a, Barkmeier et al., 2009). Moreover, previous evaluations on this topic have been limited to 1×10^5 cycles of loading and less. With the average daily routine

Conclusion

An experimental evaluation of the strength and durability of resin–enamel bonds was conducted under monotonic and cyclic normal stresses using a specially designed bonded interface specimen. The apparent endurance limit of the resin–enamel interface resulting from bonding with a commercial self-etch adhesive and resin composite was less than 20% that of the resin composite, and just over 60% of the value achieved in dentin bonding when evaluated in the same manner. Failure of the bonded

Acknowledgments

This study was supported in part by a seed Grant from the University of Maryland Baltimore County (D. Arola) and an award from the National Institutes of Health (NIDCR R01 DE016904; Arola). The authors also gratefully acknowledge Kuraray America for their generous donation of bonding supplies and resin composite, and Prof. Frederick Rueggeberg of the Georgia Health Sciences University for kindly supplying and calibrating the light curing unit.

References (74)

  • S. Bechtle et al.

    On the mechanical properties of hierarchically structured biological materials

    Biomaterials

    (2010)
  • R. Belli et al.

    Tensile and bending fatigue of the adhesive interface to dentin

    Dental Materials

    (2010)
  • M. Bernardo et al.

    Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial

    Journal of the American Dental Association

    (2007)
  • R.R. Braga et al.

    Adhesion to tooth structure: a critical review of “macro” test methods

    Dental Materials

    (2010)
  • L. Breschi et al.

    Dental adhesion review: aging and stability of the bonded interface

    Dental Materials

    (2008)
  • J.L. Cuy et al.

    Nanoindentation mapping of the mechanical properties of human molar tooth enamel

    Archives of Oral Biology

    (2002)
  • F.F. Demarco et al.

    Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials

    Dental Materials

    (2012)
  • J. De Munck et al.

    Micro-rotary fatigue of tooth–biomaterial interfaces

    Biomaterials

    (2005)
  • R.L. Erickson et al.

    Fatigue testing of enamel bonds with self-etch and total-etch adhesive systems

    Dental Materials

    (2006)
  • R.L. Erickson et al.

    Effect of pre-etching enamel on fatigue of self-etch adhesive bonds

    Dental Materials

    (2008)
  • R.L. Erickson et al.

    Fatigue of enamel bonds with self-etch adhesives

    Dental Materials

    (2009)
  • R.L. Erickson et al.

    The role of etching in bonding to enamel: a comparison of self-etching and etch-and-rinse adhesive systems

    Dental Materials

    (2009)
  • J.L. Ferracane

    Resin-based composite performance: are there some things we can't predict?

    Dent Mater

    (2013)
  • R. Frankenberger et al.

    Characterisation of resin–dentine interfaces by compressive cyclic loading

    Biomaterials

    (2005)
  • E. Ghassemieh

    Evaluation of sources of uncertainties in microtensile bond strength of dental adhesive system for different specimen geometries

    Dental Materials

    (2008)
  • J.R. Kelly et al.

    The slippery slope: critical perspectives on in vitro research methodologies

    Dental Materials

    (2012)
  • M.M. Mutluay et al.

    On the fatigue behavior of resin-dentin bonds after degradation by biofilm

    J Mech Behav Biomed Mater

    (2013)
  • D.H. Pashley et al.

    State of the art etch-and-rinse adhesives

    Dental Materials

    (2011)
  • S. Phrukkanon et al.

    The influence of cross-sectional shape and surface area on the microtensile bond test

    Dental Materials

    (1998)
  • M Peumans et al.

    Porcelain veneers bonded to tooth structure: an ultra-morphological FE-SEM examination of the adhesive interface

    Dental Materials

    (1999)
  • H. Ryou et al.

    Nanoscopic dynamic mechanical properties of intertubular and peritubular dentin

    Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials

    (2012)
  • R.L. Sakaguchi

    Review of the current status and challenges for dental posterior restorative composites: clinical, chemistry, and physical behavior considerations

    Dental Materials

    (2005)
  • S.S. Scherrer et al.

    Direct comparison of the bond strength results of the different test methods: a critical literature review

    Dental Materials

    (2010)
  • M.J. Soappman et al.

    A comparison of fatigue crack growth in resin composite, dentin and the interface

    Dental Materials

    (2007)
  • M. Staninec et al.

    Fatigue of dentin-composite interfaces with four-point bend

    Dental Materials

    (2008)
  • K. Sunnegårdh-Grönberg et al.

    Selection of dental materials and longevity of replaced restorations in public dental health clinics in Northern Sweden

    Journal of Dentistry

    (2009)
  • R. Van Noort et al.

    A critique of bond strength measurements

    Journal of Dentistry

    (1989)
  • Cited by (0)

    Support for the following investigation was provided in part by the National Institutes of Dental and Craniofacial Research (DE016904).

    1

    Co-first authors.

    View full text