Australian Dental Journal 2008; 53: 325–331

SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE
doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00074.x

Dentine bond strength and microleakage of flowable

composite, compomer and glass ionomer cement
H Xie,* F Zhang,* Y Wu,  C Chen,  W Liu 
*Department of Prosthodontics, Stomatology Institute of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
 Department of Endodontics, Stomatology Institute of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.

ABSTRACT
Background: To assess in vitro the dentine bond strength and microleakage of three Class V restorations viz. flowable
composite, compomer and glass ionomer cement.
Methods: Eighteen dentine specimens were prepared and randomly distributed among three groups. Three kinds of
restoration materials were each bonded on prepared dentine surfaces in three groups as per the manufacturers’ instructions.
Group Aelite: Tyrian SPE (a no-rinse, self-priming etchant) + One Step Plus (an universal dental adhesive) + Aeliteflo
(a flowable composite); Group Dyract: Prime & Bond NT (a no-rinse, self-priming dental adhesive) + Dyract AP
(a compomer); Group GlasIonomer: GlasIonomer Type II (a self-cured restorative glass ionomer). Fifteen dentine ⁄
restoration microtensile bond test specimens were prepared from each group and were subjected to microtensile bond
strength testing. The bond interfaces were observed morphologically using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Twenty-
four cervical cavities of 4.0 mm mesiodistal length, 2.0 mm occlusogingival height and 1.5 mm depth were prepared at the
cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) on both buccal and lingual surfaces of each tooth. The cavities were each filled with flowable
composite (Group Aelite), compomer (Group Dyract) and glass ionomer cement (Group GlasIonomer) using the same
material and methods as for the microtensile bond tests. Microleakage of each restoration was evaluated by the ratio of the
length of methylene blue penetration along the tooth-restoration interface and the total length of the dentine cavity wall on
the cut surface.
Results: One-way ANOVA and least significant difference (LSD) tests revealed statistically significant differences among the
dentine bond strength for Group Aelite (28.4 MPa), Group Dyract (15.1 MPa) and Group GlasIonomer (2.5 MPa). SEM
images showed intimate adaptation in the restoration ⁄ dentine interfaces of Group Aelite and Group Dyract. All of the
systems tested in this study presented microleakage. However, both Group Aelite (0.808) and Group Dyract (0.863) had
significantly less microleakage than Group GlasIonomer (0.964). There were no statistically significant microleakage
differences between Group Aelite and Group Dyract, and no statistically significant microleakage differences between the
occlusal margin and gingival margin.
Conclusions: None of the systems tested in this study completely eliminated microleakage. However, both the flowable
composite and compomer provided stronger dentine bond strengths and better margin sealing than the conventional glass
ionomer cement. Occlusal forces exerted the same effects on microleakage of the occlusal margin and gingival margin in
cervical cavities.
Key words: Bond strength, microleakage, flowable composite, compomer, glass ionomer cement.
Abbreviations and acronyms: CEJ = cemento-enamel junction; GIC = glass ionomer cement.
(Accepted for publication 14 January 2008.)

because of the lack of enamel. Since microleakage is a

INTRODUCTION
Cervical lesions can be caused by incorrect toothbrush-
ing, caries or occlusal loading factors.1,2 Human teeth
with cervical lesions usually have little or no enamel
at the cervical margin, therefore restorative materials
come into contact with cementum or dentine,3 and for
this reason it is essential to obtain a reliable dentine
bond to the restorative material. In addition, micro-
leakage is also critical at the margins of cervical lesions
ª 2008 Australian Dental Association
major drawback of filling materials when restoring
cervical lesions,4,5 the marginal sealing ability of these
materials must be considered at the time of restorative
treatment.
Glass ionomer cement (GIC) has been recommended
as a filling material for restoring cervical lesions3,6
because of its ability to form a chemical bond to both
enamel and dentine.7 However, poor aesthetics, low
mechanical strength and technique sensitivity to
325
H Xie et al.
moisture contamination has limited the clinical accep-
tance of GICs.8 In addition, GICs have been shown to be
less able to seal margins, can dissolve over time and
secondary caries occurrence has been reported in the
literature.9,10 Flowable composite, compomer and their
corresponding dentine bonding systems have become
popular alternatives to conventional GICs for the
restoration of cervical lesions.11 Both of these materials
exhibit low viscosity, good aesthetic properties, good
marginal sealing and bond strength to dentine.12,13
Although previous studies reported the performance
of GIC, flowable composite and compomer as filling
materials suitable for restoring cervical lesions, there
still exists some controversy as to which of these
materials is best able to bond and seal the dentine. The
hypothesis of this study was that flowable composite
and compomer have improved dentine bond strength
compared with conventional glass ionomer cement, and
therefore have a reduced degree of microleakage.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
All teeth were collected from the Oral Surgery Depart-
ment, the Stomatology Hospital of JiangSu Province,
Nanjing Medical University, China. All teeth were
collected following ethics approval from Nanjing
Medical University.
Microtensile bond strength evaluation
Eighteen caries-free freshly extracted human third
molars were selected and stored in physiological saline
solution at 4C for no more than one month before use.
The roots were removed and the crowns cleaned of
debris. The occlusal surface of the teeth was cut with a
slow-speed diamond saw under water spray to expose
flat superficial dentine. The sectioned surface of each
tooth was polished for one minute with wet 600-grit
silicon carbide abrasive paper to create a uniform
surface and smear layer. Eighteen dentine specimens
were randomly distributed among three groups, which
were determined by the three restorative materials used,
namely, Aeliteflo, Dyract AP and GlasIonomer, which
were applied as per the manufacturers’ instructions.
Dentine was cleaned and dried prior to the following
procedures:
(1) Group Aelite: Dentine was etched for 15 seconds
with Tyrian SPE and dried. One Step Plus adhesive was
applied in two coats, air dried gently with oil-free
compressed air for five seconds to evaporate the solvent
and light-cured for 20 seconds. Three < 2 mm thick
layers of Aeliteflo, approximately 5 mm thick, were
built up on the conditioned surface to form blocks, and
each layer was light polymerized for 40 seconds using a
quartz tungsten halogen curing light (Heraeus Holding
GmbH, Germany).
326
(2) Group Dyract: Prime & Bond NT was applied in
two coats, air dried gently for five seconds and light-
cured for 20 seconds. Three < 2 mm thick layers of
compomer Dyract AP, approximately 5 mm thick, were
built up on the conditioned surface to form blocks and
each layer were light polymerized for 40 seconds.
(3) Group GlasIonomer: GlasIonomer Type II
powder was mixed with GlasIonomer Type II Liquid
at a 2.5:1 proportion. The material was bonded directly
to the dentine, and was built up as a block approx-
imately 5 mm high. The exposed surface of the
restorative material was protected immediately by
applying a layer of GlasIonomer Type II Varnish (Shofu
Dental Corporation, Kyoto, Japan) recommended by
the manufacturer to prevent moisture contamination
while the restorative material was setting.
All the specimens were exposed to air for one hour
and then placed in distilled water at 37C for 24 hours.
Each specimen was cut into microbars of approximately
0.9 mm · 0.9 mm in transverse cross-section (Isomet
1000, Buehler Ltd, USA). The microbars were carefully
collected and examined under a stereomicroscope
(XTL-1, JiangNan Ltd, Nanjing, China) for the presence
of surface defects and only sound bars were used. Fifteen
microbars from each group were randomly selected for
the microtensile bond strength test. Another microbar
was randomly selected and the restoration ⁄ dentine
interface was examined. This was performed by air
drying, platinum sputter-coating and observing at
·1000 magnification with a scanning electron micro-
scope (SX-40, Akashi Seisakusho Ltd, Japan).
Before testing, the dimensions of each test bar were
measured with a micrometer and the bonded surface
area of the specimen was calculated, which was then
used to calculate the bond strength. Each bar was glued
to the flat grips of the microtensile test machine
(T-61020K, MTT, Bisco Co, USA) with cyanoacrylate
adhesive (Zapit, Dental Ventures of America Inc,
California, USA) and subjected to tensile force until
failure at a cross-head speed of 1 mm ⁄ min. The rupture
force was gauged in Newtons and then converted to
MPa according to the bonding area.
The failure modes of each specimen were determined
by examining the fractured surface of bonded dentine
with a stereomicroscope and SEM (·100 magnifica-
tion). The descriptions of all materials for microtensile
bond strength are presented in Table 1.
Microleakage evaluation
Twenty-four intact extracted human mandibular pre-
molars for routine orthodontic treatment were selected
and stored in physiological saline solution at 4C for no
more than one month before use.
A cervical cavity of 4.0 mm mesiodistal length,
2.0 mm occlusogingival height and 1.5 mm depth was
ª 2008 Australian Dental Association
 Bond strength and microleakage of resin materials

prepared at the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) on

acid- hydroxyethylmethacrylate-ester), Alkanoyl-poly-methacrylate,

Strontium-fluoro-silicate glass, Strontium fluoride, Photo initiators,

acrylate monophosphate), Nanofillers-Amorphous Silicon Dioxide,

Liquid: Copolymer of acrylic acid, tricarboxylic acid, Tartaric acid.

Bis-GMA, BPDM, HEMA, Benzalkonium chloride, Acetone, glass
both buccal and lingual surfaces of each tooth with a

Di- and Trimethacrylate resins, PENTA (dipentaerythritol penta

UDMA (Urethane dimethacrylate), TCB Resin (Tetracarboxylic

Powder: plastifying agents, thixotropic fillers, ion-donor fillers.

diamond bur (MANI Ltd, Utsunomiya, Japan) in a
water-cooled high-speed handpiece. Burs were replaced
every three preparations. Tooth structure was clean and

Photoinitiators, Cetylamine hydrofluoride, Acetone.

dried before the following procedure.
Twenty-four teeth were randomly distributed among

Butyl hydroxy toluene, Iron oxide pigments.

Principal composition

2-Acrylamido-2-methyl propanesuflonic acid.

three groups. Cervical lesions of teeth in each group
were filled with flowable composite (Group Aelite),
compomer (Group Dyract) and glass ionomer cement
(Group GlasIonomer). Before restoration, the cervical
lesions were restored using the same material and
Bis-GMA, Barium glass, silica.

methods as for the microtensile bond tests. Finishing

and polishing procedures were performed immediately
after filling.
All specimens were embedded in an acrylic resin
column and submitted to 50 000 cycles with 100 N
loading force (JZK-20, Lianneng Electron Technology
powder.

Ltd, Shanghai, China) (Fig 1). The axial force was

exerted at a 10 Hz frequency following a wave height of
1.5–2.0 mm. After occlusal force cycling, all specimens
were submitted to 1500 thermal cycles in artificial saliva
baths at 5C and 55C, with a 30-second dwell time.
010623
0600002694
0700001677

0500004951

0703000088

0702001139

After load and thermal cycling, the root apices of

Batch

each tooth were sealed with resin composite (Z100, 3M

ESPE, USA), and the entire surface of each tooth was
covered with two layers of nail varnish except for
approximately 1 mm of tooth surrounding the margin
of each restoration. All specimens were immersed in
Bisco Inc, Illinois, USA

2% methylene blue solution at 37C for 24 hours and

Shofu, Kyoto, Japan
Konstanz, Germany
Manufacturer

Dentsply De Trey,

then rinsed in running water. Each specimen was

longitudinally sectioned with two parallel cuts in
three fragments 0.60.7 mm thick in a buccolingual
direction using a slow-speed diamond saw under water
spray. The dye penetration depth along the cavity
wall (including both occlusal and gingival margins)
Table 1. Materials used in microtensile bond strength

of each prepared segment was measured with a

Light-cured microhybrid flowable

Filled universal dental adhesive

No-rinse, self-priming etchant

No-rinse, self-priming dental

Self-cured restorative glass

Light-cured compomer
Description

composite

adhesive

ionomer
GlasIonomer Type II
Prime & Bond NT
One Step Plus
Tyrian SPE

Dyract AP
Materials

Aeliteflo

Fig 1. Simulation of occlusal force loading. The restored tooth was

embedded in acrylic resin. The axial force was exerted on buccal cusp
and lingual cusp of the tooth synchronously through a special loader.
ª 2008 Australian Dental Association 327
H Xie et al.

showed that Aeliteflo produced significantly higher

dentine bond strengths than the other materials evalu-
ated. The GIC produced the lowest bond strength, and
the bond strength of Dyract was intermediate. Typical
SEM pictures of the restoration ⁄ dentine interfaces for
the three materials are shown in Figs 3–5.

Fig 2. Both the dye penetration depth along the occlusal and gingival
cavity wall and the depth of occlusal and gingival cavity wall were
measured through a micrometer of the microscrope, and the dyes
penetration ratios were calculated.
Fig 3. SEM image of sectional view at dentine ⁄ Aeliteflo (microhybrid
flowable composite) bond interface (·1000). The dentine was
conditioned with Tyrian SPE (no-rinse, self-priming etchant) and One
stereomicroscope at ·20 magnification (Fig 2). Micro- Step Plus (universal dental adhesive) applied in two coats. In this
leakage of each restoration was evaluated by the ratio picture, the Aeliteflo adapted well to the conditioned dentine surface.
of the length of methylene blue penetration along the No interfacial gap existed.
tooth-restoration interface and the total length of the
dentine cavity wall on the cut surface.

Statistical analysis
One-way ANOVA and least significant difference
(LSD) tests for pair-wise multiple comparisons were
used for statistical analysis of the microtensile bond
strength values and dye penetration ratios. The statis-
tical software used was SPSS 11.5.

RESULTS
The microtensile bond strength of each specimen and
their mean bond strengths and standard deviations for
each group are shown in Table 2. One-way ANOVA
revealed statistically significant differences (F = 49.892,
p = 0.000) among the mean microtensile bond strength
of the three groups. Multiple comparisons (Table 2)
Fig 4. SEM image of sectional view at dentine ⁄ Dyract AP
(compomer) bond interface (·1000). The dentine was conditioned with
Prime & Bond NT (no-rinse, self-priming dental adhesive). As SEM
image for Aeliteflo, a sealed bond interface is also observed in this
picture, and no interfacial gaps existed.

Table 2. Microtensile bond strengths dentine. Means (SD) in MPa (n = 15)

Group Microtensile bond strength of each specimen Mean Standard
(MPa) deviations
(MPa)

Aelite 21.3 29.5 18.1 22.3 30.3 16.4 16.1 32.6 29.1 30.2 51.1 49.5 22.5 29.2 28.3 28.4a 10.4
Dyract 16.4 20.6 13.4 12.2 32.4 9.3 7.3 15.8 18.0 11.4 5.6 15.4 14.8 20.4 13.5 15.1b 6.4
GlasIonomer 5.0 1.8 4.0 6.1 2.5 2.4 1.9 2.4 1.5 0.6 0.9 3.1 1.4 2.9 1.0 2.6c 1.6

Means with different superscript are statistically different at p < 0.01. LSD multicomparison tests were used.

328 ª 2008 Australian Dental Association


Fig 5. SEM image of sectional view of dentine ⁄ GIC II bond interface
(·1000). The dentine was not conditioned. In this picture, an
interfacial gap existed between GIC and dentine. Cracks and fails in
inner of glass ionomer cement were caused by desiccation for the
SEM.
Fig 6. SEM image of fractured bond surface in group GlasIonomer
(·100). Cohesive failure occurred in the GIC and numerous air
inclusions were found within the glass ionomer cement.
The failure mode analysis showed that almost all
specimens in Group Aelite and Group Dyract presented
adhesive fracture at the bond interface. However, the
GIC specimens exhibited cohesive failures more often.
A representative SEM image of a fractured dentine
surface of GIC is shown in Fig 6. The mean dye
penetration ratios and standard deviations for each
group are given in Table 3. One-way ANOVA revealed
statistically significant differences among groups (F =
8.226, p = 0.001), and the LSD test (Table 3) showed
that microleakage of the GIC was severe at the dentine
margins. Both Aelite and Dyract had significantly less
leakage than GIC. No statistically significant micro-
leakage differences were observed between Aelite and
Dyract. For each group, no statistically significant
microleakage differences were observed between the
occlusal margin and gingival margin (p > 0.05).
ª 2008 Australian Dental Association
Bond strength and microleakage of resin materials
Table 3. Dye penetration ratios of three kinds of
restorative materials along the cavity wall. Means and
standard deviations (n = 24)
Groups Means ± standard deviations (MPa)
Occlusal margin Gingival margin
a
Aelite 0.85 ± 0.197 0.77 ± 0.21a
Dyract 0.89 ± 0.11a 0.84 ± 0.24a
Glas Ionomer 1.00 ± 0.19b 0.93 ± 0.12b
Means with the same superscript are not statistically different at
p < 0.01. (Analysis and LSD multi-comparison test were used.)
DISCUSSION
Microleakage, either from small or microscopic open-
ings between the margins of the composite restoration
and tooth, was considered a major cause of restoration
failure.4,5 Microleakage can result in bacteria penetrat-
ing the tooth-restoration space and into dentinal
tubules, where secondary decay may occur and bacte-
rial toxins will irritate the pulp. The oral environment
(including occlusal forces and temperature variation)
and several differences between the physical properties
of teeth and restorative materials (including polymer-
ization shrinkage, the coefficient of thermal expansion,
and modulus of elasticity) can contribute to microleak-
age.14,15 According to previous literature, if poor bond
strength exists between the tooth and restorative
material, a failure of adhesion may be caused by
polymerization shrinkage, and microscopic gaps at the
tooth ⁄ restoration interface can subsequently form.16,17
The majority of cervical lesions exhibit cavity margins
located in both dentine and ⁄ or cementum.1 Therefore,
the cervical margins of restorations will be placed at
dentine or cementum surfaces, which may lead to a
weaker marginal seal than at the enamel surface.1
Considering the characteristics of cervical lesions, den-
tine specimens were fabricated in the current study to
evaluate bond strength of three materials. Tanumiharja
et al. reported no difference in microtensile bond
strengths of conventional GICs, whether conditioning
was performed or not.18 GICs are usually bonded
directly to the dentine surface when a Class V cavity is
restored, therefore dentine for the GIC was not condi-
tioned prior to its placement in the current study.
Considering the microtensile bond strength test
results, GIC exhibited the lowest bond strengths, while
Aeliteflo combined with Tyrian SPE etching and One
Step Plus presented the highest, and Dyract AP
combined with Prime & Bond NT was intermediate.
According to failure mode analysis, the GIC specimens
exhibited cohesive failures in the cement more often.
The results indicate that the bond of GIC to dentine
was much stronger than its cohesive strength. This
result was also consistent with the study by Burrow
et al.19 In their study, numerous air inclusions were
329
H Xie et al.
found within the GICs tested. Burrow et al. believed
that these air inclusions acted as stress points, thus
giving rise to the increased likelihood of cohesive failure
within the GIC. The same phenomenon was also
observed in our test, with voids existing within GIC,
while few defects were observed in Aeliteflo and Dyract
AP. Frequent cohesive failure was the chief reason why
bond strength was low for the conventional GIC. In
contrast, SEM observation of specimens in the current
study revealed intimate adaptation of dentine ⁄ restora-
tion interfaces in Aeliteflo and Dyract compared with
the GlasIonomer. Apparently, flowable composite and
compomer with their adhesive ability were better able
to integrate with the bonded dentine surface. The
formation of a hybrid layer on intertubular dentine,
formed by using the recommended adhesive systems for
flowable and composites, contributes to the restoration
retention to dentine.20
Flowable composites and compomers are resin-based
materials. Although polymerization shrinkage has been
proven to disrupt the bond of these kinds of materials
to cavity walls, flowable composites and compomers
combined with their adhesive systems showed stronger
dentine bonding than the GIC. The reason was that
shrinkage stresses during polymerization creates forces
that compete with the adhesive bond, however the bond
strength was strong enough to prevent separation of the
restorations from the cavity walls.21,22 Some authors
suggest that compomers also present lower flexural
modulus of elasticity, easier insertion similar to flow-
able composites, and are restorative materials suitable
for cervical cavities.23 However, compomers still show
lower dentine bond strength compared to flowable
composites, though the recommended dentine bond
system was used. The difference of bond strength may
be caused by the different dentine bond systems
recommended by manufacturers, flow property, chem-
ical component and other factors. Flowable composites
offer higher, better cavity adaptation to the internal
cavity wall, and greater elasticity than other resin-based
materials due to the reduced filler loading or a greater
proportion of diluent monomers in the composite
formulation.24 Flowable composites have also showed
strong dentine bond-like results in several other studies.25
Restorations in the oral cavity are subjected to
occlusal forces, moisture and temperature variations
from food or drink. When a tooth is placed under
occlusal load, the restoration will flex, and the cavity
will deform, thus producing tensile stresses and shear
stresses at the margins of restorations, which may cause
bond failure, resulting in microleakage and percolation
of fluids around the restoration.5,26,27 Thermal cycling
may also contribute to the dislodgement of the resto-
ration from the cavity walls, resulting in stresses formed
at the interface between the dentine and restora-
tion.28,29 Also, since tooth and restoration have differ-
330
ent coefficients of thermal expansion, the bond may be
broken because of differences between contraction and
expansion of tooth and restoration during thermal
cycling. Both occlusal force cycling and thermal cycling
can accelerate adhesive and ⁄ or cohesive failures or
increase interface gap formation and dye penetration
depths. Therefore, both these two artificial loading
methods were chosen to age the restorations in the
present investigation to simulate the oral cavity.
In this study, methylene blue was the dye used for
microleakage evaluation. Although methylene blue is a
water-based dye and can penetrate the GIC, several
studies in which methylene blue was used, showed
that dentine and restoration staining differed more from
the actual fissures between cavity walls and restoration
materials.30 Therefore, use of methylene blue did not
influence the validity of the results. According to current
results, the largest degrees of microleakage were
observed in GIC. Flowable composites will show
greater polymerization shrinkage for an increasing
amount of resin matrix and ⁄ or a decreasing amount
of fillers. However, flowable composites have a shock-
absorbing ability which help to compensate for con-
traction stresses in polymerization shrinkage of a
restoration.31,32 Some authors also claim that the lower
elastic modulus and increased flexibility of flowable
composites support the materials and the inability to
flex with tooth structure and resist fracture, decreasing
the effects of occlusal force cycling and reduce the
stresses of polymerization shrinkage.23,33 Since com-
pomer has a lower flexural modulus of elasticity, a
shock-absorbing ability and other properties similar to
flowable composite, it can be explained why there were
no statistically significant microleakage differences
between Aeliteflo and Dyract. In addition, the flowable
composite in the current study demonstrated increased
bond strength, which may better preserve the integrity
of the bond to tooth structure and enhance marginal
seal and decrease microleakage after artificial ageing.
The positive correlations between dentine bond strength
and microleakage explain why GIC had the severest
microleakage. However, for each group, no statistically
significant differences of microleakage were observed
between the occlusal margin and gingival margin. The
result was not in agreement with Jang’s study that
gingival margins had significantly more microleakage
than occlusal margins when suffering from occlusal
forces to the same degree.34
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this study, the hypothesis was
accepted, and the following conclusions were drawn:
None of the systems tested in this study completely
eliminated microleakage. However, both the flowable
composite and compomer provided stronger dentine
ª 2008 Australian Dental Association

bond strengths and better margin sealing than the
conventional GIC. Occlusal forces exerted the same
effects on microleakage of the occlusal margin and
gingival margin in cervical cavities.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was financially supported by the Board
of Health in JiangSu Province (No. KB2006174). The
authors would like to thank Professor Michael Burrow
for his assistance in revising the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Litonjua LA, Andreana S, Bush PJ, Tobias TS, Cohen RE.
Noncarious cervical lesions and abfractions: a re-evaluation.
J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134:845–850.
2. McCoy G. The etiology of gingival erosion. J Oral Implantol
1982;10:361–362.
3. Powell LV, Gordon GE, Johnson GH. Clinical evaluation of
direct esthetic restorations in cervical abrasion ⁄ erosion lesions:
one-year results. Quintessence Int 1991;22:687–692.
4. Bergenholtz G, Cox CF, Loesche WJ, Syed SA. Bacterial leakage
around dental restorations: its effect on the dental pulp. J Oral
Pathol 1982;11:439–450.
5. Jang KT, Chung DH, Shin D, Garcı́a-Godoy F. Effect of eccentric
load cycling on microleakage of Class V flowable and packable
composite resin restorations. Oper Dent 2001;26:603–608.
6. Matis BA, Cochran M, Carlson T. Longevity of glass ionomer
restorative materials: results of a 10-year evaluation. Quintes-
sence Int 1996;27:373–382.
7. Miyazaki M, Sato M, Onose H. Durability of enamel bond strength
of simplified bonding systems. Oper Dent 2000;25:75–80.
8. Tyas MJ. The Class V lesion–aetiology and restoration. Aust Dent
J 1995;40:167–170.
9. Maneenut C, Tyas MJ. Clinical evaluation of resin-modified
glass-ionomer restorative cements in cervical ‘abrasion’ lesions:
one-year results. Quintessence Int 1995;26:739–743.
10. Friedl KH, Powers JM, Hiller KA. Influence of different fac-
tors on bond strength of hybrid ionomers. Oper Dent
1995;20:74–80.
11. Garcia FC, Wang L, D’Alpino PH, Souza JB, Araújo PA,
Mondelli RF. Evaluation of the roughness and mass loss of the
flowable composites after simulated toothbrushing abrasion. Braz
Oral Res 2004;18:156–161.
12. Qin M, Liu H. Clinical evaluation of a flowable resin composite
and flowable compomer for preventive resin restorations. Oper
Dent 2005;30:580–587.
13. Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift EJ Jr, Stamatiades P, Wilkerson
M. A characterization of first-generation flowable composites.
J Am Dent Assoc 1998;129:567–577.
14. Amaral CM, Hara AT, Pimenta LA, Rodrigues AL Jr. Micro-
leakage of hydrophilic adhesive systems in Class V composite
restorations. Am J Dent 2001;14:31–33.
15. Manhart J, Chen HY, Mehl A, Weber K, Hickel R. Marginal
quality and microleakage of adhesive class V restorations. J Dent
2001;29:123–130.
16. Kubo S, Yokota H, Sata Y, Hayashi Y. Microleakage of self-
etching primers after thermal and flexural load cycling. Am J
Dent 2001;14:163–169.
17. Retief DH, Mandras RS, Russell CM. Shear bond strength
required to prevent microleakage of the dentine ⁄ restoration
interface. Am J Dent 1994;7:44–46.
ª 2008 Australian Dental Association
Bond strength and microleakage of resin materials
18. Tanumiharja M, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. The microtensile bond
strength of glass ionomer (polyalkenoate) cements to dentine
using four different conditioners. J Dent 2000;28:361–366.
19. Burrow MF, Nopnakeepong U, Phrukkanon S. A comparison
of microtensile bond strengths of several dentine bonding systems
to primary and permanent dentine. Dent Mater 2002;18:239–
245.
20. Nakabayashi N. Dental biomaterials and the healing of dental
tissue. Biomaterials 2003;24:2437–2439.
21. Davidson CL, de Gee AJ, Feilzer A. The competition between the
composite-dentine bond strength and the polymerization con-
traction stress. J Dent Res 1984;63:1396–1399.
22. Munksgaard EC, Irie M, Asmussen E. Dentine-polymer bond
promoted by Gluma and various resins. J Dent Res
1985;64:1409–1411.
23. Li Q, Jepsen S, Albers HK, Eberhard J. Flowable materials as an
intermediate layer could improve the marginal and internal
adaptation of composite restorations in Class V cavities. Dent
Mater 2006;22:250–257.
24. Sensi LG, Marson FC, Monteiro S Jr, Baratieri LN, Caldeira de
Andrada MA. Flowable composites as ‘‘filled adhesives’’: a
microleakage study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2004;5:32–41.
25. Unterbrink GL, Liebenberg WH. Flowable resin composites as
‘‘filled adhesives’’: literature review and clinical recommenda-
tions. Quintessence Int 1999;30:249–257.
26. Hood JA. Experimental studies on tooth deformation: stress
distribution in Class V restorations. N Z Dent J 1972;68:116–
131.
27. Selna LG, Shillingburg HT, Kerr PA. Finite element analysis of
dental structures: axisymmetric and plane stress idealizations.
J Biomed Mater Res 1975;9:237–252.
28. Price RB, Dérand T, Andreou P, Murphy D. The effect of two
configuration factors, time, and thermal cycling on resin to
dentine bond strengths. Biomaterials 2003;24:1013–1021.
29. Rosin M, Urban AD, Gärtner C, Bernhardt O, Splieth C,
Meyer G. Polymerization shrinkage-strain and microleakage in
dentine-bordered cavities of chemically and light-cured restorative
materials. Dent Mater 2002;18:521–528.
30. Yavuz I, Aydin AH. New method for measurement of sur-
face areas of microleakage at the primary teeth by biomolecule
characteristics of methilene blue. Biotechnol & Biotechnol Eq
2005;19:181–186.
31. Van Meerbeek B, Willems G, Celis JP, et al. Assessment by nano-
indentation of the hardness and elasticity of the resin dentine
bonding area. J Dent Res 1993;72:1434–1442.
32. Tjandrawinata R, Irie M, Suzuki K. Flexural properties of eight
flowable light-cured restorative materials, in immediate vs
24-hour water storage. Oper Dent 2005;30:239–249.
33. Dietschi D, Olsburgh S, Krejci I, Davidson C. In vitro evaluation
of marginal and internal adaptation after occlusal stressing of
indirect class II composite restorations with different resinous
bases. Eur J Oral Sci 2003;111:73–80.
34. Jang KT, Chung DH, Shin D, et al. Effect of eccentric load cycling
on microleakage of Class V flowable and packable composite
resin restorations. Oper Dent 2001;26:603–608.
Address for correspondence:
Dr Chen Chen
Stomatological Hospital of JiangSu Province
No. 136, Han Zhong Road
Nanjing, JiangSu Province
China 210029
Email: xhf-1980@126.com
331