Assessment of Nano-leakage for Three Adhesive Systems: An In Vitro Study | ||||
| Al-Azhar Assiut Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 2, Volume 4, Issue 2, October 2021, Page 109-116 PDF (1.82 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/aadj.2021.206571 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Author | ||||
Ibrahim El dossoky Basha 
| ||||
| Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, (Cairo-Boys), Al-Azhar University, Egypt | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Aim: This research evaluates the nanoleakage in Adper single bond 2, Clearfil SE BOND 2, and G-bond plus adhesive systems . Materials and Methods: Forty-five freshly extracted human maxillary premolar were selected for measuring their nanoleakage. The selected teeth were divided into three main groups according to adhesive systems (n=15). Group I: etch and rinse system (Adper single bond 2), group II: self-etch two-step system (Clearfil SE BOND 2), group III: self-etch all in one system (G-bond Plus). Each group was divided into 3 subgroups according to storage time (n=5) (one day, one month, six months. MOD cavity was prepared with 2.5 depth and 2 mm width and restored with restorative materials before nanoleakage at dentin adhesive interface is measured with a scanning electron microscope . Results: The result of this study revealed that Adper single bond 2 is inferior to G- bond plus then Clearfil SE BOND 2 . Conclusions: Clearfil SE BOND 2 seems to be an efficient adhesive. The storage in water for long periods has a highly significant adverse effect on the nanoleakage. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Adhesives, Resin composites, Bonding; Clearfil, G-bond, Adper | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 220 PDF Download: 336 |
||||
