• Murilo Baena Lopes Universidade Estadual de Campinas- UNICAMP
  • Simonides Consani Universidade Estadual de Campinas- UNICAMP
  • Mário Alexandre Coelho Sinhoreti Universidade Estadual de Campinas- UNICAMP
  • Luciana Andréia Sálvio Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora- UFJF
  • Lourenço Correr Sobrinho Universidade Estadual de Campinas- UNICAMP


The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bond strength of direct or indirect composite restorations to dentine. Thirty bovine teeth were flattened in order to obtain a plain dentine area. The teeth were divided in 3 groups of 10,
according to the restoration fixing method: 1) Direct technique using Single Bond Adhesive System; 2) Indirect technique using Rely-X resin cement; 3) Indirect technique using high viscosity Filtek Flow composite. For group 1, Z-
250 composite discs were fixated (6mm diameter by 2 mm height) directly on the treated area. For groups 2 and 3, composite discs were made 24 hours before being cemented, with the same dimensions of group 1, and according
to the Rely-X (group 2) and Filtek Flow (group 3) manufacturer’s recommendations. After 24h of water storage, the specimens were submitted to a shear bond test on Instron at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. The data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey’s test (5%). Filtek Flow (6.81MPa) had a significantly lower bond strength mean than Rely-X (10.18MPa) and Single Bond (13.16MPa), which did not differ significantly from each other. The indirect technique showed similar or worse results than the direct restoration technique, which is dependent on the material used for fixation.
Key words: shear bond strength – flow resin – cement


Não há dados estatísticos.

Biografia do Autor

Murilo Baena Lopes, Universidade Estadual de Campinas- UNICAMP

Aluno de Pós-graduação do curso de doutorado em Materiais Dentários da FOP-Unicamp

Simonides Consani, Universidade Estadual de Campinas- UNICAMP

Professor Titular da área Materiais Dentários da FOP-Unicamp

Mário Alexandre Coelho Sinhoreti, Universidade Estadual de Campinas- UNICAMP

Professor Titular da área Materiais Dentários da FOP-Unicamp

Luciana Andréia Sálvio, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora- UFJF

Professora Adjunta do Departamento de Odontologia Restauradora da UFJF

Lourenço Correr Sobrinho, Universidade Estadual de Campinas- UNICAMP

Professor Titular da área Materiais Dentários da FOP-Unicamp


1. van Dijken JW. Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an 11 year follow-up. J Dent. 2000; 28:299-306.
2. Kelsey WP, Triolo PT, Blankenau RJ, Kelsey MN, Ortmeier C, Hauser D. Bond strengths to enamel and dentin with indirect and direct resin composites. Am J Dent. 1996; 9:105-108.
3. Burke EJ, Qualtrough AJ. Aesthetic inlays: composite or ceramic? Br Dent J. 1994; 176:53-60.
4. Eick JD, Welch FH. Polymerization shrinkage of posterior composite resins and its possible influence on postoperative sensitivity. Quintessence Int. 1986; 17:103- 111.
5. Kildal KK, Ruyter IE. How different curing methods affect the degree of conversion of resin-based inlay/onlay materials. Acta Odontol Scand. 1994; 52:315-322.
6. Bertolotti RL. A new polymer glass utilized for modification and repair of fixed partial dentures. Quintessence Int. 1997; 28:437-439.
7. Fuhrer N. Restoring posterior teeth with a novel indirect composite resin system. J Esthet Dent. 1997;9:124-130.
8. van Dijken JW, Horstedt P. Marginal breakdown of 5-year-old direct composite inlays. J Dent. 1996; 24:389-394.
9. Wendt SL, Jr. Microleakage and cusp fracture resistance of heat-treated composite resin inlays. Am J Dent. 1991; 4:10-14.
10. Rees JS, Jacobsen PH. The restoration of posterior teeth with composite Resin. 2: Indirect-placement composite. Dent Update. 1997; 24:25-30.
11. Eldiwany M, Powers JM, George LA. Mechanical properties of direct and postcured composites. Am J Dent. 1993; 6:222-224.
12. Wendt SL, Leinfelder KF. Clinical evaluation of a heat-treated resin composite inlay: 3-year results. Am J Dent. 1992; 5:258-262.
13. Jensen ME, Chan DCN. Polymerization Skrincage and Microleakage. Posterior composite resin dental restorative materials. Amsterdam: Peter Szulc Publishing Co.; 1985. p. 243-262.
14. Milleding P. Microleakage of indirect composite inlays. An in vitro comparison with the direct technique. Acta Odontol Scand. 1992;50:295-301.
15. Sindel J, Petschelt A. Effect of the incremental technique on the biaxial flexure strength. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z. 1996;51:273-275.
302 Arquivos em Odontologia, Belo Horizonte, v.42, n.4, p.257-336, out./dez. 2006
16. Latta MA, Barkmeier WW. Bond strength of a resin cement to a cured composite inlay material. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;72:189-193.
17. Wassell RW, Walls AW, McCabe JF. Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: three-year clinical results. Br Dent J. 1995 11;179:343- 349.
18. Gladys S, Van Meerbeek B, Inokoshi S, Willems G, Braem M, Lambrechts P, et al. Clinical and semiquantitative marginal analysis of four tooth-coloured inlay systems at 3 years. J Dent. 1995;23:329-338.
19. Dalpino PH, Francischone CE, Ishikiriama A, Franco EB. Fracture resistance of teeth directly and indirectly restored with composite resin and indirectly restored
with ceramic materials. Am J Dent. 2002;15:389-394.
20. Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E. The effect of postcuring on quantity of remaining double bonds, mechanical properties, and in vitro wear of two resin composites. J Dent. 2000;28:447-452.




Como Citar

Lopes, M. B., Consani, S., Sinhoreti, M. A. C., Sálvio, L. A., & Sobrinho, L. C. (2016). BOND STRENGTH EVALUATION OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS. Arquivos Em Odontologia, 42(4). Recuperado de




Artigos mais lidos pelo mesmo(s) autor(es)