Effect of microleakage of a self-etching primer adhesive according to types of cutting instruments

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2007;32(4):327-334

Publication date (electronic) : 2007 July 31

doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2007.32.4.327

Yong-Hee Kim , Jae-Gu Park , Young-Gon Cho

Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Chosun University, Korea.

Corresponding Author: Yong-Gon Cho. Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Chosun University, 421 Seosuk-dong, Dong-gu, Gwangju, Korea, 501-825. Tel: 82-62-220-3840, Fax: 82-62-232-9064, ygcho@mail.chosun.ac.kr

Received 2007 January 03; Revised 2007 March 08; Accepted 2007 May 25.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of burs on microleakage of Class V resin restorations when a self-etching primer adhesive was used.

Forty Class V cavities were prepared with four different cutting burs on extracted third molars, and divided into one of four equal groups (n = 10); Group 1-plain cut carbide bur (no. 245), Group 2-cross cut carbide bur (no. 557), Group 3-fine diamond bur (TF-21F), Group 4-standard diamond bur (EX-41).

The occlusal and gingival margin of cavities was located in enamel and dentin, respectively. Cavities were treated with Clearfil SE Bond and restored with Clearfil AP-X. Specimens were thermocycled, immersed in a 2% methylene blue solution for 24 hours, and bisected longitudinally. They were observed leakages at enamel and dentinal margins. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon signed ranked test.

The results of this study were as follows;

1. At enamel margin, microleakage of group 4 was statistically higher than those of group 1, 2 and 3 (p < 0.01).

2. At dentinal margin, microleakage of group 4 was statistically higher than group 3 (p < 0.01), but group 1 and 2 were not statistically different with group 3 and 4.

3. Enamel microleakage was statistically higher than dentinal microleakage in group 1, 2 and 3 (p < 0.05), but statistical difference between the microleakage of enamel and dentinal margin was not in group 4.

In conclusion, the use of coarse diamond bur showed high microleakage at both enamel and dentinal margin when Clearfil SE Bond was used in class V cavity.

Keywords: Microleakage; Self-etching primer; Cutting instruments; Smear layer

References

1. Inoue H, Inoue S, Uno S, Takahashi A, Koase K, Sano H. Microtensile bond strength of two single-step adhesive systems to prpared dentin. J Adhes Dent 2001. 3129–136.

2. Ishioka S, Caputo AA. Interaction between the dentinal smear layer and composite bond strength. J Prosthet Dent 1989. 61180–185.

3. Kiremitci A, Yalcin F, Gokalp S. Bonding to enamel and dentin using self-etching adhesive systems. Quintessence Int 2004. 35367–370.

4. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching systems. I: Depth of penetration beyond dentin smear layers. Dent Mater 2001. 17296–308.

5. Finger WJ, Manabe A, Alker B. Dentin surface roughness vs. bond strength of dentin adhesives. Dent Mater 1989. 5319–323.

6. Ogata M, Harada N, Yamaguchi S, Nakajima M, Tagami J. Effect of self-etching primer vs phosphoric acid etchant on bonding to bur-prepared dentin. Oper Dent 2002. 27447–454.

7. Oliveira SSA, Pugach MK, Hilton JF, Watanabe LG, Marshall SJ, Marshall GW Jr. The influence of the dentin smear layer on adhesion: a self-etching primer vs a total-etch system. Dent Mater 2003. 19758–767.

8. Toledano M, Osorio R, De Leonardi G, Rosales-Leal J, Ceballos L, Cabererizo-Vilchez MA. Influence of self-etching primer on the resin adhesion to enamel and dentin. Am J Dent 2001. 14205–210.

9. Chan KM, Tay FR, King NM, Imazato S, Pashley DH. Bonding of mild self-etching primers/adhesives to dentin with thick smear layers. Am J Dent 2003. 16340–346.

10. Jung M, Wehlen LO, Klimek J. Surface roughness and bond strength of enamel to composite. Dent Mater 1999. 15250–256.

11. Reis AF, Oliveira MT, Giannini M, De Goes MF, Rueggeberg FA. The effect of organic solvents on one-bottle adhesives, bond strength to enamel and dentin. Oper Dent 2003. 28700–706.

12. Oliveira SS, Marshall SJ, Hilton JF, Marshall GW. Etching kinetics of a self-etching primer. Biomaterials 2002. 234105–4112.

13. Ogata M, Harada N, Yamaguchi S, Nakajima M, Pereria PNR, Tagami J. Effect of different burs on dentin bond strengths of self-etching primer bonding systems. Oper Dent 2001. 26375–382.

14. Tay FR, Carvalho R, Sano H, Pashley DH. Effect of smear layers on the bonding of a self-etching primer to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2000. 299–116.

15. Perdigao J, Geraldeli S. Bonding characteristics of self-etching adhesives to intact versus prepared enamel. J Esthet Restor Dent 2003. 1532–41.

16. Prati C, Chersoni S, Mongiorgi R. Resin-infiltrated dentin layer formation of new bonding systems. Oper Dent 1998. 23185–194.

17. Ayad MF, Rosenstiel SF, Hassan MM. Surface roughness of dentin after tooth preparation with different rotary instrumentation. J Prosthet Dent 1996. 75122–128.

18. McInnes PM, Wendt SL Jr, Retief DH, Weinberg R. Effect of dentin surface roughness on shear bond strength. Dent Mater 1990. 6204–207.

19. Dias WR, Pereira PN, Swift Ed Jr. Effect of bur types on microtensile bond strengths of self-etching systems to human dentin. J Adhes Dent 2004. 6195–203.

20. Kubo S, Yokota H, Sata Y, Hayashi Y. Microleakage of self-etching primers after thermal and flexural load cycling. Am J Dent 2001. 14163–169.

21. Cho YG, Kim HK, Lee YG. The influence of irm temporary restorations on marginal microleakage of dentin adhesives. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2003. 281–10.

22. Cho YG, Cho KC. Marginal microleakage of self-etching primer adhesives and a self-etching adhesive. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2002. 27493–501.

23. Hosoya Y, Shinkawa H, Suefiji C, Nozaka K, Garcia-Gody F. Effects of diamond bur particle size on dentin bond strength. Am J Dent 2004. 17359–364.

24. Koibuchi H, Yasuda N, Nakabayashi N. Bonding to dentin with a self-etching primer: the effect of smear layers. Dent Mater 2001. 17122–126.

25. Bouillaguet S, Gysi P, Wataha JC, Ciucchi B, Cattani M, Godin CH. Bond strength of composite to dentin using conventinal, one-step, and self-etching adhesive systems. J Dent 2001. 2955–61.

26. Lopes GC, Marson FC, Vieira LCC, de Andrada MAC, Baratieri LN. Composite bond strength to enamel with self-etching primers. Oper Dent 2004. 29424–429.

27. Sekimoto T, Derkson GD, Richardson AS. Effect of cutting instruments on permeability and morphology of the dentin surface. Oper Dent 1999. 24130–136.

28. Koase K, Inoue S, Noda M, Tanaka T, Kawamoto C, Takahashi A, Nakaoki Y, Sano H. Effect of bur-cut dentin on bond strnegth using all-in-one and two-step adhesive systems. J Adhes Dent 2004. 697–104.

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.

Table 1

Group classification by types of bur

Table 2

Distribution of microleakage scores and mean rank at enamel margins

^*: statistically significant difference between group 4 and other groups at p < 0.01 (Mann-Whitney test

Table 3

Distribution of microleakage scores and mean rank at dentinal margins

^*: statistically significant difference between group 3 and group 4 at p < 0.01 (Mann-Whitney test)

Table 4

Statistical analysis between the microleakage on enamel and dentinal margins in each group by Wilcoxon signed ranked test