The aim of the study was to evaluate the influence of composite type and adhesive system on the quality of marginal adaptation in standardized Class V cavities before and after thermo-mechanical loading (TML). The cavities were restored using different combinations of three adhesive systems [(Silorane System Adhesive (SSA), Clearfil S3 Bond (S3), G-Bond (G-B)] and two resin composite materials (Filtek Silorane, Clearfil AP-X). Six groups (n = 10): Group A (SSA-Primer + SSA-Bond, Filtek Silorane), Group B (SSA-Primer + SSA-Bond, Clearfil AP-X), Group C (S3 + SSA-Bond, Filtek Silorane), Group D (S3 + SSA-Bond, Clearfil AP-X), Group E (G-B + SSA-Bond, Filtek Silorane) and Group F (G-B + SSA-Bond, Clearfil AP-X) were defined. Marginal adaptation was assessed on replicas in the SEM at 200 × magnification before and after TML (3000 × 5-55 °C, 1.2 106 × 49 N; 1.7 Hz) under simulated dentinal fluid. The highest scores of continuous margins (%CM) were observed in the group F (G-B + SSA-Bond, Clearfil AP-X: before loading 96.4 (±3.2)/after loading 90.8 (±7.0)). A significant effect of adhesive system, composite type and loading interval was observed on the results (p < 0.05). Significantly lower scores of %CM were observed for silorane-based composite (Filtek Silorane) after TML in comparison with methacrylate-based composite (Clearfil AP-X) considering total marginal length (p < 0.05). For both Filtek Silorane and Clearfil AP-X, G-Bond performed significantly better than SSA-Primer and Clearfil S3 Bond (p < 0.05). For all combinations of one-step self-etch adhesives and SSA-Bond resin coating, silorane-based low-shrinking composite exhibited inferior marginal adaptation than did the methacrylate-based composite.
Keywords: Adhesive system; Low-shrinking composite; Marginal adaptation; One-step self-etch; Silorane.