Surface roughness and microleakage of class V composite restorations : Effect of surface sealing

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2005;30(1):22-30

Publication date (electronic) : 2005 January 31

doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2005.30.1.022

Min-Jeong Kim , Mi-Jeong Lee , Mi-Kyung Yu , Soo-Joung Park ¹, Kwang-Won Lee

Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Chonbuk National University, Korea.

¹Department of Oral Pathology, College of Dentistry, Chonbuk National University, Korea.

Corresponding author: Kwang-Won Lee. Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Chonbuk National University, Geumam-Dong, Deokjin-Gu, Jeonju, Jeonbuk, 561-712, Korea. Tel: 82-63-250-2119, Fax: 82-63-250-2049, lkw@moak.chonbuk.ac.kr

Received 2004 July 29; Revised 2004 November 09; Accepted 2004 December 07.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of surface sealing materials on microleakage and surface roughness in Class V composite restorations.

Twenty five standardized Class V cavity preparations were made on the facial surface of human premolars and were randomly assigned to 5 groups. The teeth were restored with Z-250 after applying Single Bond. Following 7 days storage in distilled water at 37℃, the restorations were sealed as following systems : No sealing ; Single Bond Adhesive ; Biscover ; Fortify ; Optiguard. Then, toothbrush abrasion test was conducted using a wear testing machine.

Surface roughness was measured by means of profilometer before and after toothbrushing and the results were statistically analysed by using a paired t-test and ANOVA. The bonded interfaces and the changes of surface roughness were examined by SEM.

For microleakage test, specimens were stained in a 2% methylene blue solution, then longitudinally sectioned and analyzed for leakage at occlusal and cervical interfaces using stereomicroscope. The results were statistically analysed by using a Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test.

Surface roughness was increasing in all groups after toothbrushing, but no statistically significant differences. In SEM observation, surface sealant was partially retained and partially detached in bonded interfaces. Especially, microgap was identified in cervical margins. In microleakage test, there was better seal in the enamel region and a significant difference between groups at occlusal margin. Control group and Single Bond group had significantly better marginal seal at enamel margin than cervical margin.

Keywords: Surface sealing; Microleakage; Surface roughness; Toothbrush abrasion test

References

1. Reid JS, Saunders WP, Chen YY. The effect of bonding agent and fissure sealant on microleakage of composite resin restorations. Quintessence Int 1991. 22(4)295–298.

2. Tjan AH, Tan DE. Microleakage at gingival margins of Class V composite resin restorations rebonded with various low-viscosity resin systems. Quintessence Int 1991. 22(7)565–573.

3. May KN Jr, Swift EJ Jr, Wilder AD Jr, Futrell SC. Effect of a surface sealant on microleakage of Class V restorations. Am J Dent 1996. 9(3)133–136.

4. Ramos RP, Chimello DT, Chinelatti MA, Dibb RG, Mondelli J. Effect of three surface sealants on marginal sealing of Class V composite resin restorations. Oper Dent 2000. 25(5)448–453.

5. Ramos RP, Chinelatti MA, Chimello DT, Dibb RG. Assessing microleakage in resin composite restorations rebonded with a surface sealant and three low-viscosity resin systems. Quintessence Int 2002. 33(6)450–456.

6. Takeuchi CY, Orbegoso Flores VH, Palma Dibb RG, Panzeri H, Lara EH, Dinelli W. Assessing the surface roughness of a posterior resin composite: effect of surface sealing. Oper Dent 2003. 28(3)281–286.

7. Munro GA, Hilton TJ, Hermesch CB. In vitro microleakage of etched and rebonded Class 5 composite resin restorations. Oper Dent 1996. 21(5)203–208.

8. Dickinson GL, Leinfelder KF. Assessing the long-term effect of a surface penetrating sealant. J Am Dent Assoc 1993. 124(7)68–72.

9. Rueggeberg FA, Margeson DH. The effect of oxygen inhibition on an unfilled/filled composite system. J Dent Res 1990. 69(10)1652–1658.

10. Manhart J, Chen HY, Mehl A, Weber K, Hickel R. Marginal quality and microleakage of adhesive class V restorations. J Dent 2001. 29(2)123–130.

11. Kawai K, Leinfelder KF. Effect of surface-penetrating sealant on composite wear. Dent Mater 1993. 9(2)108–113.

12. Doray PG, Eldiwany MS, Powers JM. Effect of resin surface sealers on improvement of stain resistance for a composite provisional material. J Esthet Restor Dent 2003. 15(4)244–249. discussion 249-250.

13. Momoi Y, Hirosaki K, Kohno A, McCabe JF. In vitro toothbrush-dentifrice abrasion of resin-modified glass ionomers. Dent Mater 1997. 13(2)82–88.

14. Svinnseth PN, Gjerdet NR, Lie T. Abrasivity of toothpastes. An in vitro study of toothpastes marketed in Norway. Acta Odontol Scand 1987. 45(3)195–202.

15. Ambjornsen E, Holland RI. In vitro abrasion of two acrylic veneers. Dent Mater 1994. 10(2)107–110.

16. Goldstein GR, Lerner T. The effect of toothbrushing on a hybrid composite resin. J Prosthet Dent 1991. 66(4)498–500.

17. de la Torre-Moreno FJ, Rosales-Leal JI, Bravo M. Effect of cooled composite inserts in the sealing ability of resin composite restorations placed at intraoral temperatures; An In Vitro Study. Oper Dent 2003. 28(3)297–302.

18. Erhardt MC, Magalhaes CS, Serra MC. The effect of rebonding on microleakage of class V aesthetic restorations. Oper Dent 2002. 27(4)396–402.

19. Ehrnford L. Surface microstructure of composite resins after toothbrush-dentifrice abrasion. Acta Odontol Scand 1983. 41(4)241–245.

Article information Continued

(open-access) :

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Figure 1

Electromechanical wear testing machine.

Figure 2

SEM images of group 1 after toothbrushing abrasion test (E : Enamel, R : Restorative material, C : Cementum).

Figure 3

SEM images of group 2 after toothbrushing abrasion test (E : Enamel, R : Restorative material, C : Cementum).

Figure 4

SEM images of group 3 after toothbrushing abrasion test (E : Enamel, R : Restorative material, C : Cementum, S : Surface sealant).

Figure 5

SEM images of group 4 after toothbrushing abrasion test (E : Enamel, R : Restorative material, C : Cementum).

Figure 6

SEM images of group 5 after toothbrushing abrasion test (E : Enamel, R : Restorative material, C : Cementum).

Table 1

Surface Treatment materials in each groups.

Table 2

Summary of surface roughness data (mean ± SD, µm, n = 5)

Table 3

Microleakage Score - Occlusal and cervical margin