• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.377-384
• /
• 2007

Present tooth bonding system can be categorized into total etching bonding system (TE) and self-etching boding system (SE) based on their way of smear layer treatment. The purposes of this study were to compare the effectiveness between these two systems and to evaluate the effect of number of themocycling on microleakage of class V composite resin restorations. Total forty class V cavities were prepared on the single-rooted bovine teeth and were randomly divided into four experimental groups: two kinds of bonding system and another two kinds of thermocycling groups. Half of the cavities were filed with Z250 following the use of TE system, Single Bond and another twenty cavities were filled with Metafil and AQ Bond, SE system. All composite restoratives were cured using light curing unit (XL2500, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) for 40 seconds with a light intensity of $600mW/cm^2$. Teeth were stored in distilled water for one day at room temperature and were finished and polished with Sof-Lex system. Half of teeth were thermocycled 500 times and the other half were thermocycled 5,000 times between $5^{\circ}C$ and $55^{\circ}C$ for 30 second at each temperature. Teeth were isolated with two layers of nail varnish except the restoration surface and 1 mm surrounding margins. Electrical conductivity (${\mu}A$) was recorded in distilled water by electrochemical method. Microleakage scores were compared and analyzed using two-way ANOVA at 95% level. From this study, following results were obtained: There was no interaction between variables of bonding system and number of thermocycling (p = 0.485). Microleakage was not affected by the number of thermocycling either (p = 0.814). However, Composite restoration of Metafil and AQ Bond, SE bond system showed less microleakage than composite restoration of Z250 and Single Bond, TE bond system (p = 0.005).

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.73-83
• /
• 1993

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of various acid treatments on dentin bonding. Freshly extracted human teeth were uprightly embedded in self curing acrylic resin, and their occlusal surfaces were grinded to expose flat dentin surfaces. The specimens were divided into 4 groups. Specimens of one group were not treated so as to be a control and those of the other three groups were threated with 10% polyacrylic acid, 10% phosphoric acid, and 10-3 solution(10% citric acid/3% ferric chloride) respectively. Primer, bonding resin and composite resin were applied over the treated dentin surfaces sequentially. All specimens were stored in $37^{\circ}C$ distilled water for 24 hours, then the tensile bond strength was measured and the treated dentin surfaces and fracured dentin surfaces were examined under a scanning electron microscope. The results were as follows: Bond strengths of acid-treated groups were higher than those of the untreated group. In the acid-treated groups, bond strength was found to be the highest in the 10-3 solution group followed by the 10% phosphoric acid group and the 10% polyacrylic acid group(P<0.01). On SEM examination of dentin surfaces, the untreated dentin surface showed a remaining smear layer and closed dentinal tubules. Dentin surfaces treated with 10 % polyacrylic acid showed a clean dentin surface without the smear layer, but showed remaining smear plugs in dentinal tubules. A dentin surface treated with 10% phosphoric acid or 10-3 solution showed open dentinal tubules without the smear layer or smear plugs. On SEM observation of the fractured dentin-resin interface, the untreated group showed that failure occurred in the smear layer. The group treated with 10% polyacrylic acid showed no resin tag remained in the dentinal tubules, but resin tags in the dentinal tubules were observed in the group treated with the 10% phosphoric acid or the 10-3 solution. On the failure mode examination, the higher the bond strength of the group, the higher the frequency of cohesive failure. The coefficient between bond strength and cohesive failure rate was 0.71.