Bond strength in class V cavities: an in vitro study on beveling, universal adhesive strategy, and composite type
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7765-2025-0608Keywords:
Dentin-bonding agents, Cavity preparation, Composite resinsAbstract
Cervical Class V lesions present restorative challenges due to their multifactorial etiology and complex bonding substrates. Objectives: This study evaluated the influence of marginal bevel, bonding using a universal adhesive (etch-and-rinse or self-etch), and the resin composite type (conventional or bulk-fill) on the bond strength of simulated Class V cavities. Methodology: A total of 80 dental fragments (7mm×7 mm×2 mm) were obtained from bovine incisors. Cylindrical cavities with enamel margins and internal dentin walls were prepared centrally in each specimen. Samples were randomly assigned to groups based on three factors: presence or absence of bevel, bonding strategy (etch-and-rinse or self-etch), and resin composite type (conventional or bulk-fill). Groups with bevel received a 1 mm enamel bevel along the preparation margins using a conical diamond bur. Adhesive and restorative procedures were performed following the manufacturer’s recommendations. Bond strength was assessed using a push-out test on a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using three-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test (α=5%). Results: Presence of a marginal bevel did not significantly influence bond strength. The etch-and-rinse bonding strategy resulted in significantly higher bond strength than the self-etch approach, and bulk-fill composites presented superior performance compared with conventional composites. Conclusions: Combining a universal adhesive applied with the etch-and-rinse strategy and a bulk-fill composite proved to be an effective approach for enhancing bond strength with enamel and dentin substrates. Beveling of enamel margins did not improve the bond strength of Class V restorations, suggesting that this procedure may be unnecessary when margins are in enamel. Avoiding beveling in such situations contributes to preserve sound tooth structure and supports a more conservative restorative approach.
Downloads
References
1Schroeder M, Reis A, Luque-Martinez I, Loguercio AD, Masterson D, Maia LC. Effect of enamel bevel on retention of cervical composite resin restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015;43(7):777-88. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.02.017
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.02.017
2Goodacre CJ, Eugene Roberts W, Munoz CA. Noncarious cervical lesions: morphology and progression, prevalence, etiology, pathophysiology, and clinical guidelines for restoration. J Prosthodont. 2023;32(2):e1-e18. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13585
» https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13585
3Machado A, Soares C, Reis B, Bicalho A, Raposo L, Soares P. Stress-strain analysis of premolars with non-carious cervical lesions: influence of restorative material, loading direction and mechanical fatigue. Oper Dent. 2017:42(3):253-65. doi: 10.2341/14-195-L
» https://doi.org/10.2341/14-195-L
4Borges AL, Borges AB, Xavier TA, Bottino MC, Patt JA. Impact of quantity of resin, C-factor, and geometry on resin composite polymerization shrinkage stress in class V restorations. Oper Dent. 2014;39(20):144-51. doi: 10.2341/12-440-L
» https://doi.org/10.2341/12-440-L
5Park J, Chang J, Ferracane J, Lee IB. How should composite be layered to reduce shrinkage stress: Incremental or bulk filling? J Dent. 2008;24(11):1501-5. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2008.03.013
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2008.03.013
6Soares BM, Barbosa MP, Almeida RV, Jardim RN, Silva EM. Marginal integrity and physicomechanical properties of a thermoviscous and regular bulk-fill resin composites. Clin Oral Investig. 2024;28(9):496. doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-05887-w
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-05887-w
7Cardoso GC, Nakanishi L, Isolan CP, Jardin PS, Moraes RR. Bond stability of universal adhesives applied to dentin using etch-and-rinse or self-etch strategies. Braz Dent J. 2019;30(5):467-75. doi: 10.1590/0103-6440201902578
» https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201902578
8Cuevas-Suárez CE, Rosa WL, Lund RG, Silva AF, Piva E. Bonding performance of universal adhesives: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2019;21(1):7-26. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a41975
» https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a41975
9Bicalho AA, Valdivia AD, Barreto BC, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A, Soares CJ. Incremental filling technique and composite material-part II: shrinkage and shrinkage stresses. Oper Dent. 2014;39(2):e83-e92. doi: 10.2341/12-442-L
» https://doi.org/10.2341/12-442-L
10Sousa JA Jr, Carregosa Santana ML, Figueiredo FE, Faria-e-Silva AL. Effects of solvent volatilization time on the bond strength of etch-and-rinse adhesive to dentin using conventional or deproteinization bonding techniques. Restor Dent Endod. 2015;40(3):202-8. doi: 10.5395/rde.2015.40.3.202
» https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2015.40.3.202
11Patanjali S, Arora A, Arya A, Grewal MS. An in vitro study of effect of beveling of enamel on microleakage and shear bond strength of adhesive systems in primary and permanent teeth. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2019;12(3):205-10. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1623
» https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1623
12Baratieri LN, Ritter AV. Critical appraisal. To bevel or not in anterior composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2005;17(4):264-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2005.tb00126.x
» https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2005.tb00126.x
13Cardenas A, Siqueira F, Nunez A, Nonato RF, Cavalcanti K, Soares CJ, Reis A, et al. Influence of irradiance and exposure times on the mechanical and adhesive properties of universal adhesives with dentin. Oper Dent. 2022;47(4):412-24. doi: 10.2341/21-042-L
» https://doi.org/10.2341/21-042-L
14Lima AF, Sasaki RT, Araujo LS, Gaglianone LA, Freitas MS, Aguiar FH, et al. Effect of tooth bleaching on bond strength of enamel-dentin cavities restored with silorane and dimethacrylate-based materials. Oper Dent. 2011;36(4):390-6. doi: 10.2341/10-332-L
» https://doi.org/10.2341/10-332-L
15Ameri H, Chasteen JE, Ghavamnasiri M, Maghami A. Effect of load cycling on nanoleakage of butt joint and beveled occlusal enamel margins in Class V composite resin restorations. Rev Clin Pesq Odontol. 2010;6(3):231-7. doi: 10.7213/aor.v6i3.23160
» https://doi.org/10.7213/aor.v6i3.23160
16Haak R, Stache G, Schneider H, Häfer M, Schmalz G, Schulz-Kornas E. Effect of the adhesive strategy on clinical performance and marginal integrity of a universal adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions in a randomized 36-month study. J Clin Med. 2023;12(18):5776. doi: 10.3390/jcm12185776
» https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12185776
17Lima AF, Silva VB, Soares GP, Marchi GM, Aguiar FH, Lovadino JR. Influence of previous acid etching on interface morphology and bond strength of self-etching adhesive to cavosurface enamel. Eur J Dent. 2012;6(1):56-62.
18Tepe H, Celiksoz O, Yaman BC. Clinical evaluation of single bond universal adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions: a 36-month retrospective study. Clin Oral Investig. 2024; 28;29(1):33. doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-06126-y
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-06126-y
19Correia AM, Tribst JP, Matos FS, Plarr JA, Caneppele TM, Borges AL. Polymerization shrinkage stresses in different restorative techniques for non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent. 2018;76:68-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.06.010
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.06.010
20Chesterman J, Jowett A, Gallacher A, Nixos P. Bulk-fill resin-based composite restorative materials: a review. Br Dent J. 2017;222(5):337-44.
21Canali GD, Ignácio SA, Rached RN, Souza EM. One-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill flowable vs. regular nanofilled composite in non-carious cervical lesions. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(2):889-97. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2509-8
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2509-8
22Baltacioğlu İH, Demirel G, Öztürk B, Aydin F, Orhan K. Marginal adaptation of bulk-fill resin composites with different viscosities in class II restorations: a micro-CT evaluation. BMC Oral Health. 2024;13;24(1):228. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-03975-7
» https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-03975-7
23Braga S, Oliveira L, Rodrigues R, Bicalho A, Novais V, Armstrong S, et al. The effects of cavity preparation and composite resin on bond strength and stress distribution using the microtensile bond test. Oper Dent. 2018;43(1):81-9. doi: 10.2341/16-338-L
» https://doi.org/10.2341/16-338-L
24Lührs AK, Jacker-Guhr S, Günay H, Herrmann P. Composite restorations placed in non-carious cervical lesions - Which cavity preparation is clinically reliable? Clin Exp Dent Res. 2020;6(5):558-67. doi: 10.1002/cre2.310
» https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.310
25Kolak V, Pešić D, Melih I, Lalović M, Nikitović A, Jakovljević A. Epidemiological investigation of non-carious cervical lesions and possible etiological factors. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018;10(7):e648-e656. doi: 10.4317/jced.54860
» https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.54860
26Villarroel M, Fahl N, Sousa AM, Oliveira OB. Direct Esthetic restorations based on translucency and opacity of composite resins. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2011;23(2):73-87. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2010.00392.x
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Todo o conteúdo do periódico, exceto onde está identificado, está licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons do tipo atribuição CC-BY.
