d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 215–222

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/dema

Does a low-shrinking composite induce less stress at the

adhesive interface?

Annelies Van Ende, Jan De Munck ∗, Atsushi Mine, Paul Lambrechts, Bart Van Meerbeek
Leuven BIOMAT Research Cluster, Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-facial Surgery,
Catholic University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, 3000 Leuven, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Objectives. Polymerization shrinkage of a composite in a high configuration-factor (C-factor)

Received 19 March 2009 cavity leads to polymerization shrinkage stress. In the prevention of high polymerization
Received in revised form shrinkage stress, a low-shrinking silorane composite (Filtek Silorane, FS, 3M ESPE) was
20 June 2009 recently marketed. Therefore, we investigated the effect of C-factor (flat surface vs. class-
Accepted 9 October 2009 I cavity) and different composite application protocols on the bonding effectiveness of a
low-shrinking composite to human dentin.
Methods. A low-shrinking silorane-based composite (FS) and a conventional methacrylate-
Keywords: based composite (Filtek Z100, 3 M ESPE) were bonded to standardized occlusal class-I cavities
Adhesion (4 mm × 4 mm × 2.5 mm) and to flat mid-coronal dentin surfaces using the two-step self-etch
Dentin adhesive ‘Silorane System Adhesive’ (3 M-ESPE). Eight experimental groups were formed,
Composite according to the following treatment protocols: Z100 ‘flat’(1), Z100 ‘cavity’(2), FS ‘flat’(3), FS
Silorane ‘flat/bulk-filled’(4), FS ‘cavity/bulk-filled’(5), FS ‘cavity/layered-filled’(6), FS ‘cavity/flowable
Micro-tensile bond strength cured’(7) and FS ‘cavity/flowable uncured’(8). For each group, at least 5 teeth were used.
Polymerization shrinkage After 1 week of water storage, the teeth were sectioned to 1 mm × 1 mm (non-trimmed)
sticks to measure the micro-tensile bond strength (␮TBS).
Results. No statistical difference in ␮TBS was recorded between Z100 ‘flat’(1) and FS ‘flat’(3).
Bonding to class-I cavity dentin lowered the ␮TBS in all groups, but this was only statistically
significant for FS ‘cavity/bulk-filled’(5) and FS ‘cavity/flowable uncured’(8).
Significance. Using the two-step self-etch Silorane System Adhesive, the conventional com-
posite Filtek Z100 and the low-shrinking composite Filtek Silorane bonded equally well to
dentin. Bulk-filling with Filtek Silorane (FS ‘flat/bulk-filled’(4)) significantly decreased the
␮TBS, suggesting that factors other than polymerization shrinkage influenced the ␮TBS.
© 2009 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

age of the resin composite, basically due to a closer packing

1. Introduction
The majority of composites used in restorative dentistry
have their common basis in the radical polymerization of
methacrylates. By conversion of monomer molecules into a
polymer network, van der Waals spaces are exchanged for
shorter covalent bindings. This causes considerable shrink-
of molecules. This shrinkage is clinically undesirable as it
puts stress to the vulnerable interface. The magnitude of
the resultant stress depends in the first place upon the cav-
ity configuration [1–3], the elastic modulus of the composite
and the polymerization conversion rate [4,5]. Clinically, the
effects of polymerization shrinkage stress can be minimized
using techniques as layering and incremental curing [4], but

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 16 33 26 16; fax: +32 16 33 27 52.
E-mail address: jan.demunck@med.kuleuven.be (J. De Munck).
0109-5641/$ – see front matter © 2009 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.dental.2009.10.003
216 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 215–222

Fig. 1 – Schematic explaining the study set-up. (a) A flat surface or a standardized occlusal class-I cavity was prepared. (b)
The cavities were filled using either the low-shrinking composite (Filtek Silorane) or a conventional methacrylate-based
composite (Filtek Z100). (c) Resin–dentin micro-specimens (1 mm × 1 mm) were cut using an automated diamond saw and
(d) stressed in tension until failure.

none of these techniques can eliminate the stress completely.
Naturally, the surest way to avoid shrinkage stress is to use
non-shrinking resins.
Recently, a low-shrinking composite, commercialized as
Filtek Silorane (3M-ESPE, Seefeld, Germany), was introduced.
So-called siloranes replace the methacrylates in the resin
matrix of dental composites [6–8]. The ring-opening chemistry
of the resin reduces shrinkage of the composite below 1 vol%
[9]. Filtek Silorane comes with a two-step self-etch adhe-
sive, commercialized as ‘Silorane System Adhesive’ (SSA).
First, a hydrophilic self-etch primer (Silorane System Adhe-
sive Self-Etch Primer, SSA-Primer) is applied and light-cured
separately prior to the application of a hydrophobic adhesive
resin (Silorane System Adhesive Bond, SSA-Bond). SSA-Bond
is methacrylate-based and is therefore compatible with con-
ventional methacrylate composites as well. Further details on
how SSA-Bond links to the silorane composite is currently not
known, but according to the technical information provided
by 3M-ESPE, SSA-Bond contains a hydrophobic bifunctional
monomer in order to match the hydrophobic silorane resin
[10,11]. In addition, TEM adhesive–composite interfacial char-
acterization [12] did not disclose any separations between
SSA-Bond and the silorane composite, while a clear incompat-
ibility existed with the experimental precursor of SSA (before
being referred to as ‘Hermes Bond’, 3M-ESPE) [13].
Because of the low-shrinking nature of this silorane
composite, the cavity configuration and the need for an incre-
mental application technique is expected to be less critical.
The hypotheses tested were therefore that (1) the cavity con-
figuration and (2) the composite application technique do not
affect the bonding effectiveness of a low-shrinking silorane-
based composite to dentin. We determined the micro-tensile
bond strength (␮TBS) of Filtek Silorane in two different cavity
configurations and using five different application techniques
in comparison to that of a conventional resin composite (con-
trol).

Table 1 – Overview of the different application protocols used in the eight experimental groups.
Group Description Total curing time (s)
‘flat’(1) The composite was applied to a flat surface and cured in 2 × 20 + 40
Filtek Z100
three horizontal layers.
‘cavity’(2) The composite was applied in a cavity and cured in bulk. 40

‘flat’(3) The composite was applied to a flat surface and cured in 2 × 20 + 40

‘flat/bulk-filled’(4)
Filtek Silorane
‘cavity/bulk-filled’(5)
‘cavity/layered-filled’(6)
‘cavity/flowable cured’(7)
‘cavity/flowable uncured’(8)
three horizontal layers.
The composite was applied to a flat surface in a silicone 40
mould and cured in bulk.
The composite was applied in a cavity and cured in bulk. 40
The composite was applied in a cavity and cured in three 2 × 20 + 40
horizontal layers.
A thin layer of an experimental Silorane Flowable was 20 + 40
applied and cured separately, after which the composite
was applied and cured in bulk.
A thin layer of an experimental Silorane Flowable was 40
applied, but not cured, after which the composite was
applied and cured in bulk.
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 215–222 217

subjected to the following composite application protocols:

2. Materials and methods
The study set-up is illustrated in Fig. 1. Non-carious human
third molars were stored in 0.5% chloramine solution at 4 ◦ C
and used within 1 month after extraction. The cusps of the
crown were flattened using a gypsum trimmer, to have a flat
reference plane for the standardized cavities. All teeth were
mounted in gypsum blocks in order to ease manipulation. The
teeth were randomly divided in eight experimental groups,
with at least five teeth per group. In five groups, a standard
box-type class-I cavity (4 mm × 4 mm) was prepared with a
depth of 2.5 mm, using a high-speed handpiece with a cylin-
drical medium-grit (100 ␮m) diamond-bur (842, Komet, Lemgo,
Germany) mounted in the MicroSpecimen Former (Univer-
sity of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA). The resulting C-factor of
these cavities is 3.5, considerably higher than the C-factor
of the flat control specimens (0.17). The 2.5 mm depth was
chosen in order to ensure that the cavities could be filled
and cured in bulk [14]. In the other three groups, the 2.5 mm
coronal part of the crown was removed using a slow-speed
diamond saw (Isomet 1000, Buehler, Lake Bluff, IL, USA) so
that the dentin depth achieved was equal to that of the bot-
tom of the occlusal class-I cavity. The teeth were mounted
in a chuck and a standard smear layer was produced by
removing a thin layer of the surface using a similar cylindri-
cal medium-grit (100 ␮m) diamond-bur (842, Komet) mounted
in the MicroSpecimen Former. Next, the specimens were
Z100 ‘flat’(1), Z100 ‘cavity’(2), FS ‘flat’(3), FS ‘flat/bulk-filled’(4),
FS ‘cavity/bulk-filled’(5), FS ‘cavity/layered-filled’(6), FS ‘cav-
ity/flowable cured’(7) and FS ‘cavity/flowable uncured’(8). A
detailed description of these protocols is given in Table 1.
Shade A3 was used for both composites. In the FS ‘flat/bulk-
filled’(4) group, a silicone mould with the same dimensions
as the class-I cavity was used to mimic the same polymeriza-
tion kinetics as the ‘cavity’ groups, but with the same lower
stress built-up (no bonding to silicone) as for the ‘flat’ sur-
faces. In FS ‘cavity/layered-filled’(6), an incremental composite
application technique was used to optimize the adaptation
of the silorane composite to the cavity-bottom. In FS ‘cav-
ity/flowable cured’(7), a thin layer of an experimental silorane
flowable composite (Exp. Silorane Flow, 3 M-ESPE) was applied
and cured at the bottom before bulk-filling the cavities in
a standardized way, by extruding the flowable resin out of
the syringe with a uniform diameter up to a length of 7 mm
(about 13 mg per cavity). The same application technique
was used in FS ‘cavity/flowable uncured’(8), except that the
experimental silorane flowable was not cured separately. The
rationale for using flowable composite at the cavity-bottom
was also to optimize the adaptation of the composite to the
cavity-bottom. In all six experimental (FS) and two control
(Filtek Z100) groups, the two-step self-etch Silorane System
Adhesive was used to rule out differences between adhe-
sive techniques. A detailed description of the system and its
application method is provided in Table 2. All the products

Table 2 – Properties of Silorane System Adhesive.

Composition (wt%)
Silorane System Adhesive 15–25% 2-hyroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA); 15–25%
self-etch primer bisphenol-a-diglycidyl ether dimethacrylate (BIS-GMA); 10–15%
water; 10–15% ethanol; 5–15% phosphoric
SSA-Primer acid-methacryloxy-hexylesters; 8–12% silane treated silica;
5–10% 1.6-hexanediol dimethacrylate; <5% copolymer of acrylic
and itaconic acid; <5% (dimethylamino) ethyl methacrylate;
<3% DL-camphorquinone; <3% phosphine oxide.
LOT 7AB EXP: 2009–02
pH = 2.7
Application method
(1) Shake the bottle briefly before dosing,
so that the SSA-Primer becomes less
viscous and flows to the dosing tip.
(2) Place one drop of SSA-Primer into
depression 1 of the dosing well, then
close the boding well protect the
SSA-Primer from light and prevent the
evaporation of the solvent.
(3) Use the enclosed black disposable
applicator to apply the SSA-Primer to the
entire surface of the cavity and massage
over the entire area for 15 s.
(4) Use a gentle steam of air until the
SSA-Primer is spread to an even film and
does not move any longer.
(5) Cure the SSA-Primer for 10 s.

Silorane System Adhesive (1) Shake bottle briefly before dosing so

70–80% Substituted dimethacrylate; 5–10% Silane treated silica;
Bond that the SSA-Bond because less viscous
5–10% triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA); <5%
and flows to the dosing tip.
Phosphoric acid-methacryloxy-hexylesters; <3%
SSA-Bond (2) Place one drop of SSA-Bond in
DL-camphorquinone; <3% 1.6-hexanediol dimethacrylate.
depression 2 of the dosing well and close
the dosing well to protect SSA-Bond from
light.
LOT 7AB EXP: 2009–02 (3) Use the enclosed green disposable
applicator to apply SSA-Bond to the entire
area of the cavity.
(4) Use a gentle steam of air until
SSA-Bond is spread to an even film and
does not move any longer.
(5) Cure SSA-Bond for 10 s.
218 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 215–222
were applied according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
Light-curing was performed using a LED-curing device (L.E.
Demetron 1, Demetron/Kerr, Danbury, CT, USA), which was
checked for output, dust and composite remnants prior
to use.
After 1 week of water storage at 37 ◦ C, the teeth were sec-
tioned perpendicular to the adhesive–tooth interface using an
automated water-cooled diamond saw (Accutom-50, Struers,
Ballerup, Denmark) to obtain rectangular 1 mm × 1 mm non-
trimmed micro-specimens for micro-tensile bond strength
(␮TBS) testing. The sticks were kept moisturized until tested.
They were attached to a modified notched Ciucchi’s jig [15]
with cyanoacrylate glue (Model Repair II Blue, Sankin Kogyo,
Tochigi, Japan) and stressed at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min
until failure in a LRX testing device (LRX, Lloyd, Hampshire,
UK) using a load cell of 100 N. The ␮TBS was expressed in MPa,
as derived from dividing the imposed force (N) at the time
of fracture by the bond area (mm2 ). When specimens failed
before actual testing, a bond strength of 0 MPa was included in
further statistical analyses. The actual number of pre-testing
failures (ptf) was explicitly noted as well.
The mode of failure was determined light-microscopically
at a magnification of 50× using a stereo-microscope (MSA
166305, Wild Heerbrugg, Switzerland). Some representa-
tive fracture surfaces were processed for scanning electron
microscopy (Feg-SEM, Philips XL30, Eindhoven, The Nether-
lands) using common SEM specimen processing techniques,
including fixation in 2.5% glutaraldehyde in cacodylate
buffer solution, dehydration in ascending concentrations of
ethanol, chemical drying using hexamethyldisilazane, and
gold-sputter coating [16].
The ␮TBS-data were statistically appraised with a one-way
ANOVA test; however, the origin of the tooth was added to the
statistical model as a random effect factor. Post hoc pairwise
comparisons (Tukey–Kramer) were conducted at a significance
level of 5%. Failure analysis data were summarized by calcu-
lating the mean percentage of interfacial failure. All statistical
analyses were carried out using the Statistica software (Stat-
Soft, Tulsa, OK, USA).
Fig. 2 – Box whisker plots of the ␮TBS (MPa). The box represents the spreading of the data between the first and third
quartile. The central vertical line represents the median. The whiskers denote minimum and maximum values. Groups that
are statistically not different are connected with a vertical line (Tukey–Kramer multiple comparisons, p > 0.05).
3. Results
The ␮TBS and respective failure analysis are summarized
per experimental condition in Table 3 and Fig. 2. The para-
metric statistical analysis showed that the different groups
(p < 0.0001) as well as the different teeth (p < 0.0001) con-
tributed significantly to the statistical model. When bonded
to a flat dentin surface, no statistical difference in ␮TBS was
recorded between Filtek Z100 and Filtek Silorane (Z100 ‘flat’(1)
vs. FS ‘flat’(3), p = 0.9540). Bonding to cavity dentin lowered the
␮TBS in both the Z100 ‘cavity’(2) and FS ‘cavity/bulk-filled’(5)
groups, but this decrease was only statistically significant for
the Filtek Silorane group (p = 0.0001).
Bulk application of Filtek Silorane to a flat dentin surface
(FS ‘flat/bulk-filled’(4)) also resulted in significantly lower ␮TBS
compared to application in layers (FS ‘flat/bulk-filled’(4) vs.
FS ‘flat’(3), p = 0.0003). An incremental composite application
technique (FS ‘cavity/layered-filled’(6)) could partially restore
the ␮TBS, but was still significantly different (p = 0.0037) from
the FS ‘flat’(3) group. Application and separate polymerization
of an intermediate layer of an experimental silorane flowable
composite prior to the actual silorane composite could also
restore the ␮TBS to almost the same level (‘cavity/layered-
filled’(6) vs. FS ‘cavity/flowable cured’(7) p = 0.9957), while
application of the flowable silorane composite uncured (FS
‘cavity/flowable uncured’(8)) significantly reduced the ␮TBS
(p < 0.0001).
Some representative fracture surfaces from the different
experimental groups are shown in Fig. 3. In all groups, most
specimens showed a mixed failure pattern (Table 3). For
Filtek Silorane, most specimens failed for the largest part
between the adhesive and the silorane composite (Table 3).
The morphologic difference in surface structure of dentin, as
exposed after fracture between the ‘flat’ preparations (linear
bur scratches, Fig. 3c) and the ‘cavity’ preparations (circular
bur scratches, Fig. 3d), respectively, are clearly visible. The
adhesive resin can be clearly distinguished from the resin
composite by the difference in filler composition.
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 215–222 219

Table 3 – Summary of the micro-tensile bond strength (␮TBS) results.

Micro-tensile bond strength (MPa) Failure analysis

␮TBS (SD) n ptf Dentin Interface Adhesive A/C Composite

Filtek Z100
‘flat’(1) 30.2 (11.1)a,b 22 5% 21% 23% 25% 26%
‘cavity’(2) 26.6 (17.3)a,b,c 19 2% 5% 44% 33% 17%

Filtek Silorane
‘flat’(3) 33.4 (11.2)a 20 2% 8% 25% 56% 10%
‘flat/bulk-filled’(4) 19.7 (10.2)c,d,e 22 2 0% 7% 12% 67% 15%
‘cavity/bulk-filled’(5) 13.2 (9.2)d,e 18 2 2% 0% 38% 49% 11%
‘cavity/layered-filled’(6) 21.5 (10.1)b,c,d 18 9% 2% 27% 37% 25%
‘cavity/flowable cured’(7) 23.7 (7.9)b,c 20 3% 19% 18% 23% 37%
‘cavity/flowable uncured’(8) 11.6 (4.5)e 17 0% 4% 11% 61% 23%
SD = standard deviation; n = total number of specimens; ptf = pre-testing failures. Means with the same superscript are not significantly different
(ANOVA and Tukey–Kramer multiple comparisons, p > 0.05). A/C = failure at the adhesive/composite interface.

obvious that although low-shrinkage properties are desirable,

4. Discussion
The first hypothesis that cavity configuration does not affect
the ␮TBS of a silorane composite, was rejected, as a significant
decrease of the ␮TBS was observed (p = 0.0001). The second
hypothesis that the composite application technique does
not affect the ␮TBS, was rejected as well, since significant
differences were observed between the different application
protocols tested (for example between FS ‘cavity/bulk-filled’(5)
and FS ‘cavity/flowable cured’(7), p = 0.0156). Altogether, it is
it does not necessarily solve all adhesion problems.
Filtek Z100 is among the fastest curing and highest shrink-
ing composites [5,17] with a relatively high E-modulus [18,19],
and was therefore chosen as a control to maximize the dif-
ferences in polymerization kinetics with that of the Silorane
composite. For the same reason, a narrow occlusal class-I cav-
ity with a high C-factor was filled and cured in bulk in the Z100
‘cavity’(2) and most FS experimental groups. Combining both
properties (high polymerization factor and high C-factor), a
‘worst-case scenario’ regarding shrinkage stress was created.

Fig. 3 – (a) Overview Feg-SEM photomicrograph of a fracture surface of the FS ‘cavity/flowable cured’(7) group, showing a
‘mixed’ failure pattern. Note the smooth glossy appearance of the bonding resin due to the absence of large filler particles.
Circular scratches typical of the cavity-bottom when prepared with the tip of the diamond-bur of a cylindrical, regular-grit
diamond-bur, can be observed. (b) Fracture surface of a Z100 ‘flat’(1) micro-specimen, showing a ‘mixed’ failure pattern.
Insert: higher magnification of the interfacially failed area; failure occured at the level of the hybrid layer. (c) Fracture surface
of a FS ‘flat’(3) micro-specimen, showing a mixed failure pattern. Straight scratches from diamond-bur preparation are
clearly visible (hand pointer). The adhesive resin was preferentially retained in these grooves. (d) Fracture surface of a Z100
‘cavity’(2) micro-specimen, showing a ‘mixed’ failure pattern, similar to that typically observed for the flat control.
220 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 215–222
Both composites Filtek Z100 and Filtek Silorane bonded
equally well to a flat dentin surface using the two-step self-
etch adhesive, Silorane System Adhesive. Silorane System
Adhesive is based on methacrylate chemistry (technical infor-
mation from 3M-ESPE [10,11]), by which it can be used to
bond conventional methacrylate-based composites to dentin
as well. Compared to previous research conducted following
the same methodology [19,20], the Silorane System Adhesive
performed in combination with Filtek Z100 equally well as
other two-step self-etch adhesives like for instance AdheSE
or Protect Bond in terms of ␮TBS.
Bonding to cavity-bottom dentin lowered the ␮TBS, but this
was somewhat unexpectedly not statistically significant for
Filtek Z100 (p = 0.9259). This suggests that the bond to dentin
was sufficiently strong to resist the polymerization shrink-
age stress induced by Filtek Z100. This could be due to the
higher viscosity of the filled, two-layered adhesive Silorane
System Adhesive [21], enabling a thick layer of adhesive to
be placed on the tooth surface. This thick layer may have
increased the strain capacity of the restoration by acting as an
elastic buffer [5,22,23]. Previous research has shown that Fil-
tek Z100 bonded to cavity-bottom dentin using the two-step
etch-and-rinse Scotchbond 1 lowered the ␮TBS significantly,
while adhesives with a separate hydrophobic adhesive resin,
like Clearfil SE and OptiBond FL, were less affected [18].
The decrease in ␮TBS, when bonding to cavity-bottom
dentin, was statistically highly significant for Filtek Silo-
rane (p = 0.0001). Previous studies have shown that the ␮TBS
may decrease with increasing C-factor [1,3,18,24]. This find-
ing is most commonly attributed to the shrinkage stress that
accompanies the polymerization process. However, since Fil-
tek Silorane is a low-shrinking composite and there was
no significant decrease recorded in the control group, it is
very unlikely that shrinkage stress is the cause in this par-
ticular case. Because the uncured composite is rather stiff,
close adaptation to the dentin surface in the narrow cavity
may have been problematic. In some specimens of the FS
‘cavity/bulk-filled’(5) group, air bubbles were indeed observed
at the composite–dentin interface, which must have led to
fracture at a lower ␮TBS. This probably also caused the low
amount of ptf’s observed in the FS ‘flat/bulk-filled’(4) and FS
‘cavity/bulk-filled’(5) groups.
Filling the cavity using an incremental technique (FS
‘cavity/layered-filled’(6)) increased the ␮TBS when compared
to a bulk-filling application technique. Previous studies using
conventional composites have already demonstrated that
an incremental technique has a beneficial effect on the
bond strength [25,26]. Mostly, this positive effect should be
attributed to reduced shrinkage stress by decreasing the C-
factor of each layer. For the same reasons mentioned above,
other factors are more likely to have improved the bond
strength. Firstly, adaptation of the rather stiff silorane com-
posite might have been better. Secondly, curing at the interface
level might have been more efficient by an increase in power
(light is only dimmed by a thin layer of composite) and cur-
ing time (the total curing time was increased as well, Table 1).
This is substantiated by a significant correlation that exists
between ␮TBS and the total curing time for all Filtek Silo-
rane groups (correlation coefficient of 0.8357 with p = 0.019).
The reduced light intensity may have impaired the silorane
composite to polymerize properly at the interface when filling
occurred in bulk. Low conversion rates have been associated
with decreased mechanical strength of adhesives [27]. It is
possible that the silorane composite is more susceptible to
reduced curing with depth than Filtek Z100, and this may
explain why only the silorane composite was “significantly”
affected by the reduced curing energy (though both compos-
ites showed a decline in ␮TBS when cured in bulk for only
40 s). Previous studies have demonstrated that Filtek Silo-
rane exhibits a polymerization reaction with a slower onset
because more time is needed to form sufficient cations to ini-
tiate polymerization [14,28]. On the other hand, Filtek Z100 is
a rather transparent composite with a higher filler load than
Filtek Silorane (85% vs. 76% weight volume) and may therefore
also transmit light better than Filtek Silorane. Because Filtek
Z100 cures more rapidly than Filtek Silorane, polymerization
efficiency of Filtek Z100 may be less affected by the reduced
curing energy provided to the Z100 ‘cavity’(2) group.
The final application protocol used with the intention to
improve material adaptation in the narrow class-I cavity was
the use of an intermediary layer of an experimental silorane
flowable composite (FS ‘cavity/flowable cured’(7) and FS ‘cav-
ity/flowable uncured’(8)). Whether or not the intermediate
layer was cured separately, caused a statistically significant
difference (p = 0.0041). When the flowable silorane compos-
ite was not cured, there was no difference compared to
bulk-filling the cavity (p = 0.9997). This indicates that polymer-
ization at the interface level is probably more critical than
adaptation of the composite to the bond.
The self-etching primer of Silorane System Adhesive has
a pH of 2.7 and thus can be classified as ‘ultra-mild’ [29].
TEM revealed a thin interaction zone, most likely represent-
ing a combination of resin-impregnation of the smear layer
and actual dentin hybridization [30,12]. The SSA-Primer and
SSA-Bond are distinguishable as two distinct layers [12], since
they are cured separately. Despite its two-step application
technique, its mechanism of adhesion resembles more that
of a one-step adhesive because the actual bond to the tooth
surface is realized by the SSA-Primer only [10]. As such ‘ultra-
mild’ one-step self-etch adhesives only interact superficially
with the smear layer-covered dentin, they are much more
dependent on the properties of this smear layer [31]. In this
study, flat surfaces were prepared using the long side of the
cylindrical bur (producing parallel scratches), while the cavity-
bottoms were prepared using the tip of the same diamond-bur
(resulting in circularly oriented scratches) (Fig. 3c vs. d). The
latter smear layer is expected to have different properties due
to different pressure, cutting and cooling efficiency. This dif-
ferent kind of smear layer, along with the use of an ‘ultra-mild’
self-etch adhesive, may explain, at least to a certain extent, the
differences observed in ␮TBS at the cavity-bottom vs. at the
flat surface [31].
Because of the reduced polymerization shrinkage of the
silorane composite compared to that of a conventional
methacrylate composite, the interface is exposed to signifi-
cantly less stress [28,4], so the need for a very strong adhesive
is reduced. The values found in this study are probably still
sufficient to withstand the lower shrinkage stress. This is sus-
tained by the little number of pre-testing failures recorded
in this study. Light-microscopic evaluation showed that most
 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 215–222
failures occurred cohesively in the adhesive layer or adhe-
sively between the adhesive and the silorane composite,
which will lead to fewer clinical consequences as the dentin
remains sealed [10].
5. Conclusion
The low-shrinking silorane composite and the methacrylate-
based composite bonded equally well to flat dentin using
the Silorane System Adhesive. From the different application
techniques evaluated in this study can be concluded that ade-
quate polymerization, especially at the bottom of the cavity,
is more important than the cavity configuration. Therefore,
a layering technique remains recommended, even for these
low-shrinking composites.
Acknowledgements
This paper is part of a thesis submitted by A. Van Ende
to the School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-facial
Surgery, Catholic University of Leuven, in partial fulfillment
of the requirements to obtain the Flemish degree of Master
in Dentistry. This study was supported in part by the FWO
No. G.0206.07 and the KULeuven OT/06/55 research grants. 3M
ESPE (Seefeld, Germany) is gratefully acknowledged for the
generous donation of materials used in this study.
references
[1] Choi KK, Ryu GJ, Choi SM, Lee MJ, Park SJ, Ferracane JL.
Effects of cavity configuration on composite restoration.
Oper Dent 2004;29:462–9.
[2] Feilzer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Setting stress in
composite resin in relation to configuration of the
restoration. J Dent Res 1987;66:1636–9.
[3] Yoshikawa T, Sano H, Burrow MF, Tagami J, Pashley DH.
Effects of dentin depth and cavity configuration on bond
strength. J Dent Res 1999;78:898–905.
[4] Ferracane JL. Developing a more complete understanding of
stresses produced in dental composites during
polymerization. Dent Mater 2005;21:36–42.
[5] Labella R, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G.
Polymerization shrinkage and elasticity of flowable
composites and filled adhesives. Dent Mater 1999;15:128–37.
[6] Eick JD, Kotha SP, Chappelow CC, Kilway KV, Giese GJ, Glaros
AG, Pinzino CS. Properties of silorane-based dental resins
and composites containing a stress-reducing monomer.
Dent Mater 2007;23:1011–7.
[7] Eick JD, Smith RE, Pinzino CS, Kostoryz EL. Stability of
silorane dental monomers in aqueous systems. J Dent
2006;34:405–10.
[8] Guggenberger R, Weinmann W. Exploring beyond
methacrylates. Am J Dent 2000;13:82D–4D.
[9] Weinmann W, Thalacker C, Guggenberger R. Siloranes in
dental composites. Dent Mater 2005;21:68–74.
[10] Santini A, Miletic V. Comparison of the hybrid layer formed
by silorane adhesive, one-step self-etch and etch and rinse
systems using confocal micro-Raman spectroscopy and
SEM. J Dent 2008;36:683–91.
[11] Sauro S, Pashley DH, Mannocci F, Tay FR, Pilecki P, Sherriff M,
Watson TF. Micropermeability of current self-etching and
etch-and-rinse adhesives bonded to deep dentine: a
221
comparison study using a double-staining/confocal
microscopy technique. Eur J Oral Sci 2008;116:184–93.
[12] Mine A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Lambrechts P, Van
Meerbeek. TEM interface characterization of a low-shrinking
composite bonded to enamel/dentin. J Dent Res 2008;87
[Special issue C, abstract 0252].
[13] Ernst CP, Galler P, Willershausen B, Haller B. Marginal
integrity of class V restorations: SEM versus dye penetration.
Dent Mater 2008;24:319–27.
[14] Bouillaguet S, Gamba J, Forchelet J, Krejci I, Wataha JC.
Dynamics of composite polymerization mediates the
development of cuspal strain. Dent Mater 2006;22:896–902.
[15] Poitevin A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Coutinho E, Peumans
M, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Critical analysis of the
influence of different parameters on the microtensile bond
strength of adhesives to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2008;10:7–16.
[16] Perdigão J, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G, Lopes
ALB. Field emission SEM comparison of four postfixation
drying techniques for human dentin. J Biomed Mater Res
1995;29:1111–20.
[17] Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Polymerization shrinkage and
contraction stress of dental resin composites. Dent Mater
2005;21:1150–7.
[18] Shirai K, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Lambrechts P,
Suzuki K, Shintani H, Van Meerbeek B. Effect of cavity
configuration and aging on the bonding effectiveness of six
adhesives to dentin. Dent Mater 2005;21:110–24.
[19] De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Coutinho E, Poitevin A,
Peumans M, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Micro-tensile
bond strength of adhesives bonded to class-I cavity-bottom
dentin after thermo-cycling. Dent Mater 2005;21:999–1007.
[20] De Munck J, Vargas M, Iracki J, Van Landuyt K, Poitevin A,
Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. One-day bonding
effectiveness of new self-etch adhesives to bur-cut enamel
and dentin. Oper Dent 2005;30:39–49.
[21] Tezvergil-Mutluay A, Lassila LVJ, Vallittu PK. Incremental
layers bonding of silorane composite: the initial bonding
properties. J Dent 2008;36:560–3.
[22] Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Complete marginal seal of
class V resin composite restorations effected by increased
flexibility. J Dent Res 1990;69:1240–3.
[23] Van Meerbeek B, Willems G, Celis JP, Roos JR, Braem M,
Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Assessment by nano-indentation
of the hardness and elasticity of the resin–dentin bonding
area. J Dent Res 1993;72:1434–42.
[24] Armstrong SR, Keller JC, Boyer DB. The influence of water
storage and C-factor on the dentin-resin composite
microtensile bond strength and debond pathway utilizing a
filled and unfilled adhesive resin. Dent Mater 2001;17:268–76.
[25] Nayif MM, Nakajima M, Foxton RM, Tagami J. Bond strength
and ultimate tensile strength of resin composite filled into
dentine cavity; effect of bulk and incremental filling
technique. J Dent 2008;36:228–34.
[26] He Z, Shimada Y, Tagami J. The effects of cavity size and
incremental technique on micro-tensile bond strength of
resin composite in class I cavities. Dent Mater 2007;23:
533–8.
[27] Yamamoto A, Tsubota K, Takamizawa T, Kurokawa H, Rikuta
A, Ando S, Takigawa T, Kuroda T, Miyazaki M. Influence of
light intensity on dentin bond strength of self-etch systems.
J Oral Sci 2006;48:21–6.
[28] Palin WM, Flaming GJ, Nathwani H, Burke FJ, Randall RC. In
vitro cuspal deflection and microleakage of maxillary
premolars restored with novel low-shrink dental
composites. Dent Mater 2005;21:324–35.
[29] Sarr M, De Munck J, Kane AW, Faye B, Vreven J, Peumans M,
et al. Micro-tensile bond strength and interfacial
characterization of 11 contemporary adhesives bonded to
bur-cut dentin. Oper Dent; accepted for publication.
222 d e n t a l m a t e r i a l s 2 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 215–222

[30] Koshiro K, Sidhu SK, Inoue S, Ikeda T, Sano H. New concept [31] Ermis RB, De Munck J, Cardoso MV, Coutinho E, Van Landuyt
of resin–dentin interfacial adhesion: the nanointeraction KL, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Bond strength
zone. J Biomed Mater Res B: Appl Biomater 2006;77: of self-etch adhesives to dentin prepared with three
401–8. different diamond burs. Dent Mater 2008;24:978–85.