• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.1-10
• /
• 2003

This study investigated the influence of IRM on marginal microleakage of 5th generation adhesives. Class V cavities with gingival margins in dentin were prepared on both buccal and lingual surfaces of 60 extract-ed human molar teeth. Prepared teeth were randomly divided into six groups. Group 1 and 4 received no temporary restoration with IRM. Group 2 and 5 were covered with IRM mixed at P/L ratio(10g/1g). Group 3 and 6 were covered with IRM mixed at P/L ratio(10g/2g). The temporary restorations were removed mechanically with an ultrasonic scaler after one-week storage in distilled water. The cavities were restored using one of two adhesives and composites ; Single Bond/Filtek Z 250(Croup 1, 2 and 3), UniFil Bond/UniFil F(Group 4, 5 and 6). Following one day storage in distilled water, the restored teeth were thermocycled for 500 cycles(between $5^{\circ}C{\;}and{\;}55^{\circ}C$) and immersed in 2 % methylene blue for dye penetration testing. The results were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis Test, Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon signed ranked test at a significance level of 0.05. The results of this study were as follows 1. Ranking of mean microleakage scores at the enamel margins was Group 10.05) 4. At the dentin margins, the microleakage of the group not pretreated with IRM was lower than that of the group pretreated with IRM. And the microleakage of UniFil Bond was lower than that of Single Bond. 5. Compared with microleakages between the enamel and dentin margins of each groups, Group 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 at dentin margin were higher microleakage than those at enamel margin. There were significant difference between enamel and dentin microleakage of Group 2 and 3(p<0.05).