Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science (구강회복응용과학지)

Korean Academy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion (대한턱관절교합학회)
권호 표지

The Study of the Effect of Thermocycling on Microleakage within Various Dentin Bonding Agents

열순환이 상아질접착제 처리 후 미세누출에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구

  • Yoo, Seung-Hoon (Department of Pediatric dnetistry, College of Dentistry, Dankook University)
  • 유승훈 (단국대학교 치과대학 소아치과학 교실)
  • Received : 2008.03.07
  • Accepted : 2008.06.25
  • Published : 2008.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Three groups of dentin bonding agents (5th generation Single Bond 2.0 and two 6the generation Prompt L-Pop, AdheSE) applied to class V cavities (upper portion with enamel margin and lower portion with dentin margin) prepared at buccal and lingual portion of premolars and molars. Each groups consist of 30 teeth. Devide into two groups, one without thermocycling and the other thermocycled. After then, infiltrate methylene blue into the gap between restoration and tooth. Within non-thermocycled groups, Single Bond 2.0 group shows lesser leakage at enamel margin than other two bonding agents (p <.05) but shows more leakage at dentin margin than other two bonding agents. (p <.05) Within thermocycled groups, Single Bond 2.0 group shows lesser leakage at both enamel and dentin margins. (p <.05)

5세대 상아질 접착제인 Adper Single bond 2.0 (3M-ESPE, USA), 6세대 상아질 접착제인 Prompt L-pop (3M-ESPE, USA), AdheSE (Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein) 를 각 상아질 접착제당 30개의 건전한 소구치 및 대구치를 선정하여 협면과 설면에 5급와동을 형성하고 복합레진을 적용하였다. 이중 절반은 열순환을 시행하지 않고 나머지 절반은 열순환을 시행하였다. 이후 메틸렌 블루를 침투시켜 시약의 침투 정도를 측정한 후 통계분석하였다. 열순환을 시행하지 않은 군과 열순환을 시행한 군을 통틀어 열순환을 시행하지 않은 상아질 군에서만 Single Bond 2.0의 미세누출의 양이 Prompt L-Pop과 AdheSE에 비하여 높았고 (p <.05) 나머지 군에서는 모두 Single Bond 2.0의 미세누출의 양이 적었다. (p <.05) 열순환 이후에 미세누출의 양이 늘어난 군은 Prompt L-Pop과 AdheSE의 상아질 군이었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Mazer RB, Leinfelder KF, Russell CM. Degradation of microfilled posterior composite. Dent Mater. 1992 May;8(3):185-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(92)90080-V
  2. Willems G, Lambrechts P, Lesaffre E, Braem M, Vanherle G. Three-year follow-up of five posterior composites: SEM study of differential wear. J Dent. 1993 Apr;21(2):79-86 https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(93)90150-O
  3. Bayne SC, Heymann HO, Swift EJ Jr. Update on dental composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 1994 Jun;125(6):687-701 https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1994.0113
  4. Feilzer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL : Curing contraction of composites and glass-ionomer cements. J Prosthet Dent, 59:297-300, 1988 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(88)90176-X
  5. Suliman AH, Boyer DB, Lakes RS : Polymerization shrinkage of composite resins : comparison with tooth deformation. J Prosthe Dent, 71:7-12, 1994 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90247-X
  6. Fusayama T, Nakamura M, Kurosaki N, Iwaku M. Non-pressure adhesion of a new adhesive restorative resin. J Dent Res. 1979 Apr;58(4):1364-70 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345790580041101
  7. Dauvillier BS, Aarnts MP, Feilzer AJ : Developments in shrinkage control of adhesive restoratives. J Esthet Dent 10:88-96, 1997
  8. Davidson CL, de Gee AJ, Feilzer A. The competition between the composite-dentin bond strength and the polymerization contraction stress. J Dent Res. 1984 Dec;63(12):1396-9 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345840630121101
  9. Eick JD, Welch FH. Polymerization shrinkage of posterior composite resins and its possible influence on postoperative sensitivity. Quintessence Int. 1986 Feb;17(2):103-11
  10. Puckett AD, Smith R. Method to measure the polymerization shrinkage of light-cured composites. J Prosthet Dent. 1992 Jul;68(1):56-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90285-I
  11. Pereira PN, Okuda M, Nakajima M, et al. : Relationship between bond strength and nanoleakage : Evaluation of a new assessment method. Am J Dent, 14:100-105, 2001
  12. Tay FR, Gwinnett AJ, Wei SH : The overwet phenomenon : A scanning electron microscopic study of surface moisture in the acid-conditioned, resion-dentin interface. Am J Dent, 9:109-114, 1996
  13. Davidson CL, de Gee AJ : Relaxation of polymerization contraction stress by flow in dental composites. J Dent Res, 63:146-8, 1984 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345840630021001
  14. Saksguchi RL, Peters MCRB, Nelson SR et al :Effect of polymerization contraction in composite restorations. J Dent 20:178-182, 1992 https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(92)90133-W
  15. Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Petschelt A. Technique sensitivity of dentin bonding: effect of application mistakes on bond strength and marginal adaptation. Oper Dent. 2000 Jul-Aug;25(4):324-30
  16. Frankenberger R, Perdigão J, Rosa BT, Lopes M. "No-bottle" vs "multi-bottle" dentin adhesives--a microtensile bond strength and morphological study. Dent Mater. 2001 Sep;17(5):373-80 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(00)00084-1
  17. Rossomando KJ, Wendt SL Jr. Thermocycling and dwell times in microleakage evaluation for bonded restorations. Dent Mater. 1995 Jan;11(1):47-51.Links https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(95)80008-5
  18. Wahab FK, Shaini FJ, Morgano SM. The effect of thermocycling on microleakage of several commercially available composite Class V restorations in vitro. J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Aug;90 (2):168-174 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00300-7
  19. Guéders AM, Charpentier JF, Albert AI, Geerts SO. Microleakage after thermocycling of 4 etch and rinse and 3 self-etch adhesives with and without a flowable composite lining. Oper Dent. 2006 Jul-Aug;31(4): 450-5 https://doi.org/10.2341/05-55
  20. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent. 2003 May-Jun;28(3):215- 35.Links