Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2004 Feb;135(2):185-93; quiz 228.
doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2004.0150.

In vivo versus in vitro microtensile bond strength of axial versus gingival cavity preparation walls in Class II resin-based composite restorations

Affiliations
Comparative Study

In vivo versus in vitro microtensile bond strength of axial versus gingival cavity preparation walls in Class II resin-based composite restorations

John H Purk et al. J Am Dent Assoc. 2004 Feb.

Abstract

Background: Gingival margins in Class II composite restorations are a site of frequent failure. The purpose of the authors' study was to compare the microtensile dentin bond strength of gingival and axial restored cavity preparation walls of Class II composite restorations under in vivo and in vitro conditions.

Methods: After obtaining informed consent, the authors placed Class II resin-based composite restorations in 14 premolar teeth from five patients, under in vivo or in vitro conditions. The teeth were sectioned to obtain rectangular specimens from axial and gingival walls with a surface area of approximately 0.5 square millimeter. The authors tested 85 microtensile adhesive samples from the 14 teeth on a testing instrument (Universal Instron, Model 125, Instron, Canton, Mass.) until failure.

Results: The mean (+/- standard deviation) mircotensile dentin bond strengths in mega-pascals were as follows: in vivo axial, 36.5 (14.9); in vivo gingival, 17.6 (11.6); in vitro axial, 49.5 (13.9); in vitro gingival, 34.0 (13.1). A two-way analysis of variance found a statistically significant difference between in vitro and in vivo conditions and between the axial and gingival walls (P < or = .001). Eighty-eight percent of the fractured samples involved the adhesive layer as observed under scanning electron microscopy up to x2,500. Seventeen of the gingival samples and two of the axial samples debonded during the preparation phase and could not be tested.

Conclusion: The dentinal microtensile strength of adhesive/resin-based composite bonded to the gingival wall was significantly weaker than the bond to the axial wall, and in vivo conditions produced significantly weaker bond strengths than did in vitro conditions.

Clinical implications: The dentinal adhesive bond of resin-based composite to gingival walls is significantly weaker and thus more subject to failure than the bond to axial walls. In vitro bond strength studies may overestimate the bond strength of adhesives in in vivo applications.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • In vivo versus in vitro.
    Mjör IA. Mjör IA. J Am Dent Assoc. 2004 Oct;135(10):1370, 1372; author reply 1372. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2004.0038. J Am Dent Assoc. 2004. PMID: 15551977 No abstract available.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources