Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

  • 제41권2호
  • /
  • Pages.83-90
  • /
  • 2016
  • /
  • 2234-7658(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-7666(eISSN)
대한치과보존학회 (The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Marginal microleakage of cervical composite resin restorations bonded using etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives: two dimensional vs. three dimensional methods

  • Khoroushi, Maryam (Dental Materials Research Center and Department of Operative Dentistry) ;
  • Ehteshami, Ailin (Dental Students Research Committee and Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences)
  • 투고 : 2015.09.30
  • 심사 : 2015.12.30
  • 발행 : 2016.05.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objectives: This study was evaluated the marginal microleakage of two different adhesive systems before and after aging with two different dye penetration techniques. Materials and Methods: Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 48 human molars. Clearfil SE Bond and Single Bond (self-etching and etchand-rinse systems, respectively) were applied, each to half of the prepared cavities, which were restored with composite resin. Half of the specimens in each group underwent 10,000 cycles of thermocycling. Microleakage was evaluated using two dimensional (2D) and three dimensional (3D) dye penetration techniques separately for each half of each specimen. Data were analyzed with SPSS 11.5 (SPSS Inc.), using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (${\alpha}=0.05$). Results: The difference between the 2D and 3D microleakage evaluation techniques was significant at the occlusal margins of Single bond groups (p = 0.002). The differences between 2D and 3D microleakage evaluation techniques were significant at both the occlusal and cervical margins of Clearfil SE Bond groups (p = 0.017 and p = 0.002, respectively). The difference between the 2D and 3D techniques was significant at the occlusal margins of non-aged groups (p = 0.003). The difference between these two techniques was significant at the occlusal margins of the aged groups (p = 0.001). The Mann-Whitney test showed significant differences between the two techniques only at the occlusal margins in all specimens. Conclusions: Under the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that the 3D technique has the capacity to detect occlusal microleakage more precisely than the 2D technique.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Manhart J, Neuerer P, Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Hickel R. Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:289-296. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2000.108774
  2. Demarco FF, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 2012;28:87-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.003
  3. Opdam NJ, Loomans BA, Roeters FJ, Bronkhorst EM. Five-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations placed by dental students. J Dent 2004;32:379-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2004.02.005
  4. Korkmaz Y, Ozel E, Attar N, Bicer CO, Firatli E. Microleakage and scanning electron microscopy evaluation of all-in-one self-etch adhesives and their respective nanocomposites prepared by erbium:yttriumaluminum-garnet laser and bur. Lasers Med Sci 2010;25:493-502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-009-0672-5
  5. Krmek SJ, Bogdan I, Simeon P, Mehicic GP, Katanec D, Anic I. A three-dimensional evaluation of microleakage of class V cavities prepared by the very short pulse mode of the erbium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser. Lasers Med Sci 2010;25:823-828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-009-0707-y
  6. Waldman GL, Vaidyanathan TK, Vaidyanathan J. Microleakage and resin-to-dentin interface morphology of pre-etching versus self-etching adhesive systems. Open Dent J 2008;2:120-125. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210600802010120
  7. Zhao XY, Li SB, Gu LJ, Li Y. Detection of marginal leakage of Class V restorations in vitro by microcomputed tomography. Oper Dent 2014;39:174-180. https://doi.org/10.2341/12-182-L
  8. Frankenberger R, Tay FR. Self-etch vs etch-andrinse adhesives: effect of thermo-mechanical fatigue loading on marginal quality of bonded resin composite restorations. Dent Mater 2005;21:397-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2004.07.005
  9. Duarte S Jr, Dinelli W, da Silva MH. Influence of resin composite insertion technique in preparations with a high C-factor. Quintessence Int 2007;38:829-835.
  10. Geerts S, Bolette A, Seidel L, Gueders A. An in vitro evaluation of leakage of two etch and rinse and two self-etch adhesives after thermocycling. Int J Dent 2012;2012:852841.
  11. Deliperi S, Bardwell DN, Wegley C. Restoration interface microleakage using one total-etch and three self-etch adhesives. Oper Dent 2007;32:179-184. https://doi.org/10.2341/06-54
  12. Eick JD, Gwinnett AJ, Pashley DH, Robinson SJ. Current concepts on adhesion to dentin. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 1997;8:306-335. https://doi.org/10.1177/10454411970080030501
  13. Nagpal R, Manuja N, Tyagi SP, Singh UP. In vitro bonding effectiveness of self-etch adhesives with different application techniques: a microleakage and scanning electron microscopic study. J Conserv Dent 2011;14:258-263. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.85805
  14. van Dijken JW. A prospective 8-year evaluation of a mild two-step self-etching adhesive and a heavily filled two-step etch-and-rinse system in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater 2010;26:940-946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.05.009
  15. Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Mine A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL. State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater 2011;27:17-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.023
  16. Proenca JP, Polido M, Osorio E, Erhardt MC, Aguilera FS, Garcia-Godoy F, Osorio R, Toledano M. Dentin regional bond strength of self-etch and total-etch adhesive systems. Dent Mater 2007;23:1542-1548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.02.001
  17. Sano H, Yoshikawa T, Pereira PN, Kanemura N, Morigami M, Tagami J, Pashley DH. Long-term durability of dentin bonds made with a self-etching primer, in vivo. J Dent Res 1999;78:906-911. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345990780041101
  18. Hayakawa T, Kikutake K, Nemoto K. Influence of selfetching primer treatment on the adhesion of resin composite to polished dentin and enamel. Dent Mater 1998;14:99-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(98)00015-3
  19. Silveira de Araujo C, Incerti da Silva T, Ogliari FA, Meireles SS, Piva E, Demarco FF. Microleakage of seven adhesive systems in enamel and dentin. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006;7:26-33.
  20. Gueders 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;31:450-455. https://doi.org/10.2341/05-55
  21. Owens BM, Johnson WW, Harris EF. Marginal permeability of self-etch and total-etch adhesive systems. Oper Dent 2006;31:60-67. https://doi.org/10.2341/04-185
  22. Stalin A, Varma BR, Jayanthi. Comparative evaluation of tensile-bond strength, fracture mode and microleakage of fifth, and sixth generation adhesive systems in primary dentition. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2005;23:83-88. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-4388.16448
  23. Khoroushi M, Mansoori M. Marginal sealing durability of two contemporary self-etch adhesives. ISRN Dent 2012;2012:204813.
  24. Hilton TJ. Can modern restorative procedures and materials reliably seal cavities? In vitro investigations. Part 2. Am J Dent 2002;15:279-289.
  25. Gwinnett JA, Tay FR, Pang KM, Wei SH. Comparison of three methods of critical evaluation of microleakage along restorative interfaces. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:575-585. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80308-7
  26. Khoroushi M, Karvandi TM, Kamali B, Mazaheri H. Marginal microleakage of resin-modified glass-ionomer and composite resin restorations: effect of using etchand-rinse and self-etch adhesives. Indian J Dent Res 2012;23:378-383. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9290.102234
  27. Pashley DH, Tay FR. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching adhesives. Part II: etching effects on unground enamel. Dent Mater 2001;17:430-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(00)00104-4
  28. 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.
  29. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Van Meerbeek B. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 2005;84:118-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910508400204
  30. Doerr CL, Hilton TJ, Hermesch CB. Effect of thermocycling on the microleakage of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomers. Am J Dent 1996;9:19-21.
  31. Yap AU. Effects of storage, thermal and load cycling on a new reinforced glass-ionomer cement. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:40-44. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1998.00192.x
  32. Koshiro K, Inoue S, Tanaka T, Koase K, Fujita M, Hashimoto M, Sano H. In vivo degradation of resindentin bonds produced by a self-etch vs. a total-etch adhesive system. Eur J Oral Sci 2004;112:368-375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2004.00141.x
  33. Koshiro K, Inoue S, Sano H, De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B. In vivo degradation of resin-dentin bonds produced by a self-etch and an etch-and-rinse adhesive. Eur J Oral Sci 2005;113:341-348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2005.00222.x

피인용 문헌

  1. Microleakage in class V cavities prepared using conventional method versus Er:YAG laser restored with glass ionomer cement or resin composite vol.31, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2016.1220471
  2. A comparison of the marginal and internal fit of porcelain laminate veneers fabricated by pressing and CAD-CAM milling and cemented with 2 different resin cements vol.121, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.04.008
  3. Hydrolysis-resistant and stress-buffering bifunctional polyurethane adhesive for durable dental composite restoration vol.7, pp.7, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200457
  4. Comparison of the Ability of Two Brands of CBCT with That of SEM to Detect the Marginal Leakage of Class V Composite Resin Restorations vol.2021, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6688554
  5. Comparing the Ability of Various Resin-Based Composites and Techniques to Seal Margins in Class-II Cavities vol.13, pp.17, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13172921