THE EFFECT OF TWO DIFFERENT ADHESIVE SYSTEMS ON MICROLEAKAGE OF CLASS V COMPOSITE RESTORATION IN PRIMARY TEETH | ||||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 7, Volume 41, Issue 1, April 2016, Page 37-41 PDF (721.9 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2016.59170 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| AbdAlnabi Ahmed N.* ; Hanno Azza* ; Wahba Nadia A.* ; Hanafy Seham A.* | ||||
| B.D.S. Faculty of Dentistry Almergip University, Libya | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| INTRODUCTION: polymerization shrinkage of composite resins causes stresses that may exceed the strength of the bond with the surrounding tooth structure, leading to interfacial failure. The use of an adhesive system is always required. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the effect of total-etch adhesive system with self-etch adhesive system on microleakage of universal nano-hybrid composite resin when used to restore class V cavities in primary teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 50 freshly extracted sound primary teeth. Standardized class V cavity preparations on the buccal surfaces were prepared and the sample was randomly divided into 2 equal groups: Group I: 25 teeth received total etch adhesive system. Group II: 25 teeth received self-etch adhesive system. The cavities were restored with a universal nano-hybrid restorative material. All specimens were thermocycled and immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsine dye at 37C˚ for 24 hours. Basic fuchsine penetration was assessed on a 4 point grading scale (0 to 4) using a stereomicroscope to evaluate the microleakage of the restorations. RESULTS: Comparing the percentage of microleakage scores of group I and group II at occlusal margin it was found that, the group I was significantly lower than group II (p=0.041). As for percentage of microleakage scores for the gingival margin between groups I and II it was found that there was no significant difference (p=0.741). Comparing the percentage of microleakage scores at both the gingival and occlusal margis of group I and II, no significant difference was revealed (p=0.105) (p=0.278) respectively. The sum of occlusal and gingival percentage of microleakage scores of group I compared to group II revealed no significant difference (p=0.325).. CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in microleakage sum scores between total etch and self-etch adhesive system groups. At the occlusal margin, total-etch adhesive system was significantly better than the self-etch adhesive systems. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Microleakage; total etch adhesive; self- etch adhesive; primary teeth | ||||
| References | ||||
|
1. Ahmed WM. Gingival Microleakage of Class V Resin Composite Restorations with Fiber Inserts. 2012. University of Toronto.
2. Ilie N, Hickel R. Macro-, micro- and nanomechanical investigations on siloraneandmethacrylate-based composites. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 810-9.
3. Van Meerbeek B, Vargas M, Inoue S, Yoshida Y, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, et al. Adhesives and cements to promote preservation dentistry. Oper Dent 2001; (Suppl 6): 119-44.
4. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, et al. Buonocore Memorial Lecture adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003; 28: 215-35.
5. Van Meerbeek B, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Mine A, Van Ende A, Neves A, et al. Relationship between bond-strength tests and clinical outcomes. Dent Mater 2010; 26: e100–e21.
6. 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.
7. Bradna P, Vrbova R, Dudek M, Roubickova A, Housova D. Comparison of bonding performance of self-etching and etch & rinse adhesives on human dentin using reliability analysis. J Adhes Dent 2008; 10: 423-9.
8. Vargas MA, Swift EJ. Microleakage of resin composite with wet versus dry bonding. Am J Dent 1994; 7: 187-9.
9. Tomczak M, Tomczak E, Kleka P, Lew R. Using power analysis to estimate appropriate sample size. TRENDS in Sport Sciences 2014; 4: 195-206.
10. Ahmadi R. In vitro comparison of microleakage of nanofilled and flowable composite in restoring class V cavity in primary teeth. Zahedan J Res Med Sci 2013; 15: 45-50.
11. Gale MS, Darvel BW. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent 1999; 27: 89-99.
12. Taylor MJ, Lynch E. Review microleakage. J Dent 1992; 20: 3-10.
13. Hegde MN, Vyapaka P, Shetty S. A comparative evaluation of microleakage of three different newer direct composite resins using a self-etching primer in class V cavities: An in vitro. J Conserv Dent 2009; 12: 160-3.
14. Al-Razooki AA, UR Rehman MM. Microleakage in Class V nanofilled composite compared with traditional hybrid and flowable composite restorations: An in vitro study. Pak Oral Dental J 2010; 30: 215-19.
15. Arrais CA, Giannini M, Rueggeberg FA. Effect of sodium sulfinate salts on the polymerization characteristics of dual-cured resin cement systems exposed to attenuated light-activation. J Dent 2009; 37: 219-27.
16. Gale MS, Darvel BW. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent 1999; 27: 89-99.
17. Mehmet D, Fatma A, Emrullah B, Bayram I, Cafer S, Hakan Ç, et al. A comparison of the levels of microleakage of five adhesive. J Res Dent 2013; 1: 66-71.
18. Sensi LG, Lopes GC, Monteiro S Jr, Baratieri LN, Vieira LC. Dentin bond strength of self-etching primers adhesives. Oper Dent 2005; 30: 63-8.
19. Abo T, Uno S, Sano H. Comparison of bonding efficacy of an all-in-one adhesive with a self-etching primer system. Eur J Oral Sci 2004; 112: 286-92.
20. Santini A, Ivanovic V, Ibbetson R, Milia E. Influence of marginal bevels on microleakage around Class V cavities bonded with seven self-etching agents Am J Dent 2004; 17: 257-61.
21. Bracket WW, Haisch LD, Pearce MG, Brackett MG. Microleakage of Class V resin composite restorations placed with self-etching adhesives. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 91: 42-5.
22. Tay FR, Suh BI, Pashley DH, Prati C. Chuang SF, Li F. Factors contrib-uting to the incompatibility between simplified-step adhesives and self-cured or dual-cured composites. Part II, Single-bottle, Totaletch adhesive. J Adhes Dent 2003; 5: 91-105.
23. Sánchez-Ayala A, Farias-Neto A, Vilanova LSR, Gomes JC, Gomes OMM. Marginal microleakage of class V resin based Composite restorations bonded with six one-step self-etch systems. Braz Oral Res 2013; 27: 225-30.
24. El Sayed HY, Abdalla AI, Shalby ME. Marginal microleakage of composite resin restorations bonded by desensitizing one step self-etch adhesive. Tanta Dent J 2014; 11: 180-8. | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 157 PDF Download: 384 |
||||
