International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 2 ( April-June, 2019 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparison of Microleakage of Class V Restoration with Self-etch and Selective-etch Adhesive Systems: An In Vitro Study

Alperen M Yalniz, Ahmet O Karacan, Cagatay Cakar, Yildirim H Bagis

Keywords : Adhesive, Composite resin, Microleakage, Self-etch adhesives

Citation Information : Yalniz AM, Karacan AO, Cakar C, Bagis YH. Comparison of Microleakage of Class V Restoration with Self-etch and Selective-etch Adhesive Systems: An In Vitro Study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2019; 9 (2):51-55.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1229

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-06-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Purpose: This in vitro study is to evaluate the microleakage of the universal and self-etch adhesives in selective-etch and self-etch techniques by evaluating dye penetration. Materials and methods: In this study, a total of 48 restoration and caries-free maxillar or mandibular anterior teeth were used. Standardized class V cavities (1.5 mm deep, not beveled, rounded corners) were prepared on buccal surfaces of all teeth, which were gingival edges above from the enamel-cement junction. A total of 48 teeth were randomly separated into four groups. The first group was restored with Clearfil S3 Bond Plus (Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan) in the self-etch technique. The second group was restored with single bond universal (SBU) adhesive L-pop (3M ESPE, St. Paul, USA) in the self-etch technique. The third group was restored with Clearfil S3 Bond Plus (Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan) in the selective-etch technique. The fourth group was restored with single bond universal adhesive L-pop (3M ESPE, St. Paul, USA) in the selective-etch technique. Final finishing and polishing of the restorations were performed by using discs (ZenitFlex, Munich, Germany). They were thermocycled for 5,000 thermal cycles between water baths at 5°C and 55°C. All surfaces were isolated with two layers of nail polish, except up to 1 mm from the restoration margin for correct evaluation of the microleakage. The apices of all teeth were covered with a composite resin (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic, Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan). The teeth were stored in an oven with 2% methylene blue solution for 24 hours. The samples were embedded in acrylic resin in plastic molds. Results: Microleakage scores (count and percentages) for all four groups are shown in Table 2. The Kruskal–Wallis test was applied to determine the differences between microleakage scores in the four study groups at a 0.05 level of significance. No statistically significant difference was found (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The two adhesive systems showed clinically acceptable microleakage values in two different application techniques.


PDF Share
  1. Duke ES. Adhesion and its application with restorative materials. Dent Clin North Am 1993;37(3):329–340.
  2. Latta MA, Barkmeier WW. Dental adhesives in-contemporary restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 1998;42(4):567–577.
  3. Frankenberger R, Perdigao J, et al. “No-bottle” vs “multi-bottle” dentin adhesives a microtensile bond strength and morphological study. Dent Mater 2002;17(5):373–380. DOI: 10.1016/S0109-5641(00)00084-1.
  4. Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, et al. State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater 2011;27(1):17–28. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.023.
  5. Pashley DH, Tay FR, et al. State of the art etch-and-rinse adhesives. Dent Mater 2011;27(1):1–16. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.016.
  6. Muñoz MA, Luque I, et al. Immediate bonding properties of universal adhesives to dentine. J Dent 2013;41(5):404–411. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.03.001.
  7. Reis A, Zander-Grande C, et al. Effect of mode of application on the microtensile bond strength of a self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesive system. Oper Dent 2010;35(4):428–435. DOI: 10.2341/09-319-L.
  8. Breschi L, Mazzoni A, et al. Dental adhesion review: aging and stability of the bonded interface. Dent Mater 2008;24(1):90–101. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2007.02.009.
  9. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003;28(3):215–235.
  10. Hamouda IM, Samra NR, et al. Microtensile bond strength of etch and rinse vs self-etch adhesive systems. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2011;4(3):461–466. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2010.12.007.
  11. Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, et al. Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials 2007;28(6):3757–3785. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.04.044.
  12. Marchesi G, Frassetto A, et al. Adhesive performance of a multi-mode adhesive system: 1-year in vitro study. J Dent 2014;42(5):603–612. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.12.008.
  13. Moszner N, Salz U, et al. Chemical aspects of self-etching enamel–dentin adhesives: a systematic review. Dent Mater 2005;21(10): 895–910. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.05.001.
  14. Perdigão J, Munoz M, et al. Immediate adhesive properties to dentin and enamel of a universal adhesive associated with a hydrophobic resin coat. Oper Dent 2014;39(5):489–499. DOI: 10.2341/13-203-LR.
  15. Erickson RL, Barkmeier WW, et al. Bond strength of self-etch adhesives to pre-etched enamel. Dent Mater 2009;25(10):1187–1194. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.04.004.
  16. Rotta M, Bresciani P, et al. Effects of phosphoric acid pretreatment and substitution of bonding resin on bonding effectiveness of self-etching systems to enamel. J Adhes Dent 2007;9(6):537–545.
  17. Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955;34(6):849–853. DOI: 10.1177/00220345550340060801.
  18. de Goes MF, Shinohara MS, et al. Performance of a new one-step multi-mode adhesive on etched vs non-etched enamel on bond strength and interfacial morphology. J Adhes Dent 2014;16(3):243–250.
  19. Wagner A, Wendler M, et al. Bonding performance of universal adhesives in different etching modes. J Dent 2014;42(7):800–807. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.04.012.
  20. Hanabusa M, Mine A, et al. Bonding effectiveness of a new “multi-mode” adhesive to enamel and dentine. J Dent 2012;40(6):475–484. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.02.012.
  21. Köhler B, Rasmusson CG, et al. A five-year clinical evaluation of class II composite resin restorations. J Dent 2000;28(2):111–116. DOI: 10.1016/S0300-5712(99)00059-7.
  22. Collins CJ, Bryant RW, et al. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin restorations: 8-year findings. J Dent 1998;26(4):311–317. DOI: 10.1016/S0300-5712(97)00019-5.
  23. Agrawal VS, Parekh VV, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of silorane-based composite and nanohybrid composite with or without polyethylene fiber inserts in class II restorations: An in vitro study. Oper Dent 2012;37(5):E1–E7. DOI: 10.2341/11-353-L.
  24. Pioch T, Staehle HJ, et al. Effect of dentin adhesives on the enamel-dentin/composite interfacial microleakage. Am J Dent 2001;14: 252–258.
  25. Kaya S, YigitÖzer S, et al. Comparison of apical microleakage of dual-curing resin cements with fluid-filtration and dye extraction techniques. Med Sci Monit 2015;21:937–944. DOI: 10.12659/MSM.892741.
  26. Huang GT, Söderholm KJ. In vitro investigation of shear bond strength of a phosphate based dentinal bonding agent. Scand J Dent Res 1989;97(1):84–92. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1989.tb01434.x.
  27. Gu XH, Kern M. Marginal discrepancies and leakage of all-ceramic crowns: influence of luting agents and aging conditions. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16(2):109–116.
  28. Doerr CL, Hilton TJ, et al. Effect of thermocycling on the microleakage of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomers. Am J Dent 1996;9(1):19–21.
  29. Yap AU. Effects of storage, thermal and load cycling on a new reinforced glass-ionomer cement. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25(1):40–44. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.1998.00192.x.
  30. Raskin A, D'Hoore W, et al. Reliability of in vitro microleakage tests: A literature review. J Adhes Dent 2001;3(4):295–308.
  31. Crim GA, Shay JS. Microleakage pattern of a resin-veneered Cavity liner. J Prosthet Dent 1987;58(3):273–276. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(87)90038-2.
  32. Gale MS, Darvell BW. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent 1999;27(2):89–99. DOI: 10.1016/S0300-5712(98)00037-2.
  33. Guéders AM, Charpentier JF, et al. Microleakage after thermocycling of 4 etches and rinse and 3 self-etch adhesives with and without a Flowable composite lining. Oper Dent 2006;31(4):450–455. DOI: 10.2341/05-55.
  34. Baygin O, Korkmaz FM, et al. Effects of different types of adhesive systems on the microleakage of compomer restorations in Class V cavities prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser in primary teeth. Dent Mater J 2012;31(2):206–214. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2011-133.
  35. Ikemi T, Nemoto K. Effects of lining materials on the composite resin's shrinkage stresses. Dent Mater 1994;13(1):1–8. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.13.1.
  36. Tolidis K, Nobecourt A, et al. Effect of a resin-modified glass ionomer liner on volumetric polymerization shrinkage of various composites. Dent Mater 1998;14(6):417–423. DOI: 10.1016/S0300-5712(99)00016-0.
  37. Albers HF. Tooth-colored restoratives: Principles and techniques. 9th ed., London: BC Becker; 2002. pp. 111–125.
  38. Hilton TJ, Broome JC. Direct posterior esthetic restorations. Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry, 3rd ed., Illinois: Quintessence Publishing Co.; 2006. pp. 289–339.
  39. Stahl F, Ashworth SH, et al. Light emitting diode (LED) polymerization of dental composites: flexural properties and polymerization potential. Biomaterials 2000;16:41–47.
  40. Oberholzer TG, DuPreez IC, et al. Effect of LED curing on microleakage, shear bond strength and surface hardness of a resin-based composite restorations. Biomaterials 2005;26(18):3981–3986. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.10.003.
  41. Charbeneau GT. Principles and Practice of Operative Dentistry. Philadelphia: Lea & Febinger; 1988. pp. 163–165.
  42. Lacy AM, Young DA. Modern concepts and material for the pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent 1996;18:469–475.
  43. Öztürk AN, Usumez A, et al. Influence of different light source on microleakage of class V composite resin restoration. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31(5):500–504. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01273.x.
  44. Hanks GT, Wataha JC, et al. Permeability of biological and synthetic molecules through dentine. J Oral Rehabil 1994;21(4):475–487. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1994.tb01162.x.
  45. Ferrari M, Garcia-Godoy F. Sealing ability of new generation adhesive restorative materials placed on vital teeth. Am J Dent 2002;15:(2)117–128.
  46. Gupta A, Tavane P, et al. Evaluation of Microleakage with Total-etch, Self-etch and Universal Adhesive Systems in Class V Restorations: An In vitro Study. J Clin Diagn Res 2017;11(4):ZC53–ZC56.
  47. Siso SH, Bayrak I, et al. Bond Strengths and Microleakage of Composites Bonded with Novel Adhesives. 5th International Congress on Adhesive Dentistry; 2013.
  48. Souza-Junior EJ, Prieto LT, et al. Selective enamel etching: effect on marginal adaptation of self-etch LED-cured bond systems in aged Class I composite restorations. Oper Dent 2012;37(2):195–204. DOI: 10.2341/11-184L.
  49. Motevaselian F, Yassine E, et al. In vitro Microleakage of Class V Composite Restorations in Use of Three Adhesive Systems. J Islam Dent Assoc Iran Winter 2016;28(1):14–19.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.