This study aimed to investigate the bonding effects of cleaning protocols on dentin impregnated with endodontic sealer residues using ethanol (E) or xylol (X). The effects of dentin acid etching immediately (I) or 7 days (P) after cleaning were also evaluated. For bonding to dentin, universal adhesive (Scotchbond Universal; 3M ESPE) was used. The persistence of sealer residues, hybrid layer formation and microshear bond strength were the performed analysis.
One hundred and twenty bovine dentin specimens were allocated into 4 groups (
G2 and G4 groups showed a lower persistence of residues (
Dentin cleaning using xylol, regardless of the time-point of acid etching, provided lower persistence of residues over the surface and thicker hybrid layer. However, the bond strength of the universal adhesive system in etch-and-rinse strategy was not influenced by the cleaning protocols or time-point of acid etching.
This study evaluated the effects of different smear layer preparations on the dentin permeability and microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of 2 self-etching adhesives (Clearfil SE Bond [CSE] and Clearfil Tri-S Bond Universal [CTS]) under dynamic pulpal pressure.
Human third molars were cut into crown segments. The dentin surfaces were prepared using 4 armamentaria: 600-grit SiC paper, coarse diamond burs, superfine diamond burs, and carbide burs. The pulp chamber of each crown segment was connected to a dynamic intra-pulpal pressure simulation apparatus, and the permeability test was done under a pressure of 15 cmH2O. The relative permeability (%P) was evaluated on the smear layer-covered and bonded dentin surfaces. The teeth were bonded to either of the adhesives under pulpal pressure simulation, and cut into sticks after 24 hours water storage for the µTBS test. The resin-dentin interface and nanoleakage observations were performed using a scanning electron microscope. Statistical comparisons were done using analysis of variance and
Only the method of surface preparation had a significant effect on permeability (
Superfine diamond and carbide burs can be recommended for dentin preparation with the use of 2-step CSE.
The purpose of this systematic review was to collect and discuss the technique of adhesive systems application on dentin substrate under electric current.
The first search strategy was based on data available at PubMed, LILACS, Scielo, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, using a combination of descriptors such as “dentin bond agents OR adhesive system AND electric current OR electrobond” or “dentin bonding agents OR dentin bonding agent application OR adhesive system AND electric current OR electrobond”, with no limit regarding the publication year. The second search strategy was based on the articles' references found previously. An additional search strategy was applied that concerned the proposed theme in the SBU-UNICAMP (Unicamp's Library System Institutional Repository).
Twelve studies published between 2006 and 2020 were found. The analyses of the selected studies showed that the use of electric current during adhesive systems application on dentin, whether conventional or self-conditioning, increases resinous monomer infiltration in the dentin substrate, which improves the hybridization processes and the bond strength of the restorative material to dentin.
Despite the favorable results related to the use of this technique, there is still no specific protocol for the application of adhesive systems under electric current.
This study aimed to evaluate the interface between a calcium silicate cement (CSC), Biodentine and dental adhesives in terms of sealing ability.
Microleakage test: 160 standardized class II cavities were prepared on 80 extracted human molars. The cavities were filled with Biodentine and then divided into 2 experimental groups according to the time of restoration: composite resin obturation 15 minutes after Biodentine handling (D0); restoration after 7 days (D7). Each group was then divided into 8 subgroups (
A tendency towards less microleakage was observed when Biodentine was etched (2.47%) and when restorations were done without delay (D0: 4.31%, D7: 6.78%), but this was not significant. The adhesives containing 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate monomer showed the most stable results at both times studied. All Biodentine/adhesive interfaces were homogeneous and regular.
The good sealing of the CSC/adhesive interface is not a function of the system adhesive family used or the cement maturation before restoration. Biodentine can be used as a dentine substitute.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of different concentrations of nanofillers on the chemical and physical properties of ethanol-solvated and non-solvated dental adhesives.
Eight experimental adhesives were prepared with different nanofiller concentrations (0, 1, 2, and 4 wt%) and 2 solvent concentrations (0% and 10% ethanol). Several properties of the experimental adhesives were evaluated, such as water sorption and solubility (
The presence of solvent reduced the DC after 20 seconds of curing, but increased the final DC, water sorption, and solubility of the adhesives. Storage in water reduced the strength of the adhesives. The addition of 1 wt% and 2 wt% nanofillers increased the polymerization rate of the adhesives.
The presence of nanofillers and ethanol improved the final DC, although the DC of the solvated adhesives at 20 seconds was lower than that of the non-solvated adhesives. The presence of ethanol reduced the strength of the adhesives and increased their water sorption and solubility. However, nanofillers did not affect the water sorption and strength of the tested adhesives.
The aim of this study was to investigate the microshear bond strength (μSBS) of different universal adhesive systems applied to hybrid computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) restorative materials repaired with a composite resin.
Four types of CAD-CAM hybrid block materials—Lava Ultimate (LA), Vita Enamic (VE), CeraSmart (CS), and Shofu Block HC (SH)—were used in this study, in combination with the following four adhesive protocols: 1) control: porcelain primer + total etch adhesive (CO), 2) Single Bond Universal (SB), 3) All Bond Universal (AB), and 4) Clearfil Universal Bond (CU). The μSBS of the composite resin (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic) was measured and the data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and the Tukey test, with the level of significance set at
The CAD-CAM block type and block-adhesive combination had significant effects on the bond strength values (
The μSBS values were affected by hybrid block type. All tested universal adhesive treatments can be used as an alternative to the control treatment for repair, except the AB system on VE blocks (the VE/AB group). The μSBS values showed variation across different adhesive treatments on different hybrid CAD-CAM block types.
The aims of this study were to conduct a systematic review of the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of multi-mode adhesives to dentin and to perform a meta-analysis to assess the significance of differences in the µTBS of one of the most commonly used universal adhesives (Scotchbond Universal, 3M ESPE) depending on whether the etch-and-rinse or self-etch mode was used.
An electronic search was performed of MEDLINE/PubMed, ScienceDirect, and EBSCOhost. Laboratory studies that evaluated the µTBS of multi-mode adhesives to dentin using either the etch-and-rinse or self-etch mode were selected. A meta-analysis was conducted of the reviewed studies to quantify the differences in the µTBS of Scotchbond Universal adhesive.
Only 10 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Extensive variation was found in the restorative materials, testing methodologies, and failure mode in the reviewed articles. Furthermore, variation was also observed in the dimensions of the microtensile testing beams. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the etch-and-rinse and self-etch modes for Scotchbond Universal adhesive (
Multi-mode ‘universal’ adhesives can achieve substantial bonding to dentin, regardless of the used modes (either etch-and-rinse or self-etch).
The aim of this
Extracted 160 sound human incisors were used for the study. Teeth were divided into 4 treatment groups: No treatment, 35% hydrogen peroxide, 16% carbamid peroxide, 7.5% carbamid peroxide. After bleaching treatments, groups were divided into subgroups according to the adhesive systems used and application modes (
No significant difference were found among bleaching groups (35% hydrogen peroxide, 16% carbamid peroxide, 7.5% carbamid peroxide, and no treatment groups) in the mean SBS values. There was also no difference in SBS values between Single Bond Universal and Gluma Universal at same application modes, whereas self-etch mode showed significantly lower SBS values than etch and rinse mode (
The bonding performance of the universal adhesives was enhanced with the etch and rinse mode application to bleached enamel and non-bleached enamel.
The aim of this systematic review was to critically analyze previously published studies of the effects of dentin surface pretreatment with deproteinizing agents on the bonding of self-etch (SE) adhesives to dentin. Additionally, a meta-analysis was conducted to quantify the effects of the above-mentioned surface pretreatment methods on the bonding of SE adhesives to dentin.
An electronic search was performed using the following databases: Scopus, PubMed and ScienceDirect. The online search was performed using the following keywords: ‘dentin’ or ‘hypochlorous acid’ or ‘sodium hypochlorite’ and ‘self-etch adhesive.’ The following categories were excluded during the assessment process: non-English articles, randomized clinical trials, case reports, animal studies, and review articles. The reviewed studies were subjected to meta-analysis to quantify the effect of the application time and concentration of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and hypochlorous acid (HOCl) deproteinizing agents on bonding to dentin.
Only 9 laboratory studies fit the inclusion criteria of this systematic review. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that the pooled average microtensile bond strength values to dentin pre-treated with deproteinizing agents (15.71 MPa) was significantly lower than those of the non-treated control group (20.94 MPa).
In light of the currently available scientific evidence, dentin surface pretreatment with deproteinizing agents does not enhance the bonding of SE adhesives to dentin. The HOCl deproteinizing agent exhibited minimal adverse effects on bonding to dentin in comparison with NaOCl solutions.
This study examined the effects of additional acid etching on the dentin bond strength of one-step self-etch adhesives with different compositions and pH. The effect of ethanol wetting on etched dentin bond strength of self-etch adhesives was also evaluated.
Forty-two human permanent molars were classified into 21 groups according to the adhesive types (Clearfil SE Bond [SE, control]; G-aenial Bond [GB]; Xeno V [XV]; Beauti Bond [BB]; Adper Easy Bond [AE]; Single Bond Universal [SU]; All Bond Universal [AU]), and the dentin conditioning methods. Composite resins were placed on the dentin surfaces, and the teeth were sectioned. The microtensile bond strength was measured, and the failure mode of the fractured specimens was examined. The data were analyzed statistically using two-way ANOVA and Duncan's
In GB, XV and SE (pH ≤ 2), the bond strength was decreased significantly when the dentin was etched (
The effect of additional acid etching on the dentin bond strength was influenced by the pH of one-step self-etch adhesives. Ethanol wetting on etched dentin could create a stronger bonding performance of one-step self-etch adhesives for acid etched dentin.
The purpose of this
A total of 120 third molars with mild dental fluorosis were randomly divided into 6 groups (
Overall, there were significant differences among all groups in the PM (
Conventional acid etching provided a similar degree of occlusal seal in teeth with fluorosis compared to those pretreated with a bur or Er:YAG laser. Pretreatment of pits and fissures with Er:YAG in teeth with fluorosis may be an alternative method before fissure sealant application.
The purpose of this study was to compare the microshear bond strength (µSBS) and bonding interfaces of two-step total-etching and self-etching adhesive systems to three etch types of dentin either the acid etched, laser etched or laser and acid etched.
The occlusal dentinal surfaces of thirty human molars were used. They were divided into six groups: group 1, 37% H3PO4 + Single Bond 2 (3M ESPE); group 2, Er:YAG laser (KEY Laser 3, KaVo) + Single Bond 2; group 3, Er:YAG laser + 37% H3PO4 + Single Bond 2; group 4, Clearfil SE Primer + Bond (Kuraray); group 5, Er:YAG laser + Clearfil SE Bond; group 6, Er:YAG laser + Clearfil SE Primer + Bond. The samples were subjected to µSBS testing 24 hr after bonding. Also scanning microscopic evaluations were made on the resin-dentin interfaces of six specimens.
The µSBS of group 2 was significantly lower than that of groups 1 and 3 in Single Bond 2 (
Treatment of dentin surface using phosphoric acid or self-etching primer improved the adhesion of Er:YAG lased dentin.
This study evaluated the effects of adhesion variables such as the priming concepts of canal wall and the curing modes of adhesives on the sealing ability of a resin-based root canal filling system.
Apical microleakage of the Resilon-RealSeal systems filled with 3 different combinations of adhesion variables was compared with the conventional gutta-percha filling using a dye penetration method. Experimental groups were SEDC, Resilon (Resilon Research LLC) filling with self-etch RealSeal (SybronEndo) primer and dual-cure RealSeal sealer; NELC, Resilon filling with no etching, Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (3M ESPE) primer application and light-curing adhesive; and TELC, Resilon filling with Scotchbond Multi-Purpose primer and adhesive used under total etch / wet bonding and light-cure protocols. GPCS, gutta-percha filling with conventional AH26 plus sealer, was the control group.
The median longitudinal dye penetration length of TELC was significantly shorter than those of GPCS and SEDC (Kruskal-Wallis test,
When a resin-based root canal filling material was used, compared to the self-etching primer and the dual-cure sealer, the total etch/wet-bonding with primer and light-curing of adhesive showed improved apical sealing and was highly recommended.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of various application methods of one-step self-etch adhesives to microtensile resin-dentin bond strength.
Thirty-six extracted human molars were used. The teeth were assigned randomly to twelve groups (
Manual agitation and ultrasonic agitation of adhesive significantly increased the microtensile bond strength than single coating and double coating did. Double coating of adhesive significantly increased the microtensile bond strength than single coating did and there was no significant difference between the manual agitation and ultrasonic agitation group. There was significant difference in microtensile bonding strength among all adhesives and Clearfil Tri-S Bond showed the highest bond strength.
In one-step self-etching adhesives, there was significant difference according to application methods and type of adhesives. No matter of the material, the manual or ultrasonic agitation of the adhesive showed significantly higher microtensile bond strength.
The purpose of this study was to compare the microleakage of low and high viscosity flowable resins in class V cavities applied with 1-step adhesives.
Forty class V cavities were prepared on the cervices of buccal and lingual surfaces of extracted molar teeth and divided into four groups (n=8). Cavities were restored with AQ Bond Plus/Metafil Flo α, G-Bond/UniFil LoFlo Plus (Low flow groups), AQ Bond Plus/Metafil Flo and G-Bond/UniFil Flow (High flow group), respectively.
Specimens were immersed in a 2% methylene blue solution for 24 hours, and bisected longitudinally. They were observed microleakages at the enamel and dentinal margins.
In conclusion, the low viscosity flowable resins showed lower marginal microleakage than do the high viscosity flowable resins in class V cavities.
The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of various dentin bonding systems on microtensile bond strength of immediate dentin sealing (IDS) and delayed dentin sealing (DDS). Eighteen extracted permanent molars were used in this study. The teeth for DDS group were restored with a provisional restorations, and immersed in saline solution for 1 week, and divided into 3 subgroups according to various dentin bonding adhesives; SB subgroup (3 step total-etch adhesive), SE subgroup (2 step self-etch adhesive), XE subgroup (1 step self-etch adhesive). In IDS group, the teeth were divided into 3 subgroups, and applied with bonding adhesives as in DDS group. The teeth were restored with provisional restorations, and immersed in saline solution for 1 week. Indirect composite disc was cemented with resin cement, and all specimens were subjected to microtensile bond strength. The data were statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Student t-test.
The results were as follows:
The IDS group showed significantly higher µTBS than DDS group in 3 step total-etch and 2 step self-etch adhesive (p < 0.05). In IDS and DDS group, 3 step total-etch adhesive showed the highest µTBS value, followed by 2 step self-etch, and 1 step self-etch adhesive. In IDS group, the µTBS value for 1 step self-etch adhesive was significantly different from those of the other subgroups (p < 0.05), and in DDS group, there were statistical differences in all subgroup (p < 0.05). Failure modes of tested dentin bonding adhesives were mostly mixed failure and only 1 step self-etch adhesive showed adhesive failure.
The purpose of this study was to prove that an intermediate resin layer (IRL) can increase the bond strength to dentin by reducing the permeability of single-step adhesives.
Flat dentin surfaces were created on buccal and lingual side of freshly extracted third molar using a low-speed diamond saw under copious water flow. Approximately 2.0 mm thick axially sectioned dentin slice was abraded with wet #600 SiC paper. Three single-step self-etch adhesives; Adper Prompt L-Pop (3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA), One-Up Bond F (Tokuyama Corp, Tokyo, Japan) and Xeno III (Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany) were used in this study. Each adhesive groups were again subdivided into ten groups by; whether IRL was used or not; whether adhesives were cured with light before application of IRL or not; the mode of composite application.
The results of this study were as follows;
1. Bond strength of single-step adhesives increased by an additional coating of intermediate resin layer, and this increasement was statistically signigicant when self-cured composite was used (p < 0.001).
2. When using IRL, there were no difference on bond strengths regardless the curing procedure of single-step adhesives.
3. There were no significant difference on bond strengths between usage of AB2 or SM as an IRL.
4. The thickness of hybrid layer was correlated with the acidity of adhesive used, and the nanoleakage represented by silver deposits and grains was examined within hybrid and adhesive layer in most of single-step adhesives.
5. Neither thickness of hybrid layer nor nanoleakage were related to bond strength.
This study was to compare the microshear bond strength (µSBS) of light- and chemically cured composites to enamel coupled with four 2-step self-etch adhesives and also to evaluate the incompatibility between 2-step self-etch adhesives and chemically cured composite resin.
Crown segments of extracted human molars were cut mesiodistally, and a 1 mm thickness of specimen was made. They were assigned to four groups by adhesives used: SE group (Clearfil SE Bond), AdheSE group (AdheSE), Tyrian group (Tyrian SPE/One-Step Plus), and Contax group (Contax). Each adhesive was applied to a cut enamel surface as per the manufacturer's instruction. Light-cured (Filtek Z250) or chemically cured composite (Luxacore Smartmix Dual) was bonded to the enamel of each specimen using a Tygon tube. After storage in distilled water for 24 hours, the bonded specimens were subjected to µSBS testing with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. The mean µSBS (n=20 for each group) was statistically compared using two-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD, and t test at 95% level. Also the interface of enamel and composite was evaluated under FE-SEM.
The results of this study were as follows;
1. The µSBS of the SE Bond group to the enamel was significantly higher than that of the AdheSE group, the Tyrian group, and the Contax group in both the light-cured and the chemically cured composite resin (p < 0.05).
2. There was not a significant difference among the AdheSE group, the Tyrian group, and the Contax group in both the light-cured and the chemically cured composite resin.
3. The µSBS of the light-cured composite resin was significantly higher than that of the chemically cured composite resin when same adhesive was applied to the enamel (p < 0.05).
4. The interface of enamel and all 2-step self-etch adhesives showed close adaptation, and so the incompatibility of the chemically cured composite resin did not show.
This study was performed to investigate the compatibility between 4 dentin adhesives and 4 resin luting cements.
Dentin adhesives used in this study were All-Bond 2 (Bisco Inc., Schaumbrug, IL, USA), Clearfil SE-Bond (Kuraray Medical Inc, Osaka, Japan), Prompt L-Pop (3M Dental Products, St. Paul, MN, USA), One-Up Bond F (Tokuyama corp., Tokyo, Japan). Resin luting cements used in this study were Choice (Bisco Inc., Schaumbrug, IL, USA), Panavia F (Kuraray Medical Inc, Osaka, Japan), RelyX ARC (3M Dental Products, St. Paul, MN, USA), Bistite II DC (Tokuyama corp., Tokyo, Japan). Combination of each dentin adhesive and corresponding resin cement was made to 16 experimental groups.
Flat dentin surfaces was created on mid-coronal dentin of extracted mandibular third molars, then dentin surface was polished with 320-grit silicon carbide abrasive papers.
Indirect resin composite block (Tescera, Bisco) was fabricated. Its surface for bonding to tooth was polished with silicon carbide abrasive papers. Each dentin adhesive was treated on tooth surface and resin composite overlay were luted with each resin cement. Each bonded specimen was poured in epoxy resin and sectioned occluso-gingivally into 1.0 mm thick slab, then further sectioned into 1.0 × 1.0 mm2 composite-dentin beams. Microtensile bond strength was tested at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. The data were analysed by one-way ANOVA and Duncan's multiple comparison tests.
The results of this study were as follows;
2-step self-etching dentin adhesive which has additional bonding resin is more compatible than 1-step self-etching dentin adhesive.
This study compared the microshear bond strength (µSBS) to end and side of enamel rod bonded by four adhesives including two total etch adhesives and two self-etch adhesives.
Crown segments of extracted human molars were cut mesiodistally. The outer buccal or lingual surface was used as specimens cutting the ends of enamel rods, and inner slabs used as specimens cutting the sides of enamel rods.
They were assigned to four groups by used adhesives: Group 1 (All-Bond 2), Group 2 (Single Bond), Group 3 (Tyrian SPE/One-Step Plus), Group 4 (Adper Prompt L-Pop). After each adhesive was applied to enamel surface, three composite cylinders were adhered to it of each specimen using Tygon tube. After storage in distilled water for 24 hours, the bonded specimens were subjected to µSBS testing with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. The results of this study were as follows;
1. The µSBS of Group 2 (16.50 ± 2.31 MPa) and Group 4 (15.83 ± 2.33 MPa) to the end of enamel prism was significantly higher than that of Group 1 (11.93 ± 2.25 MPa) and Group 3 (11.97 ± 2.05 MPa) (p < 0.05).
2. The µSBS of Group 2 (13.43 ± 2.93 MPa) to the side of enamel prism was significantly higher than that of Group 1 (8.64 ± 1.53 MPa), Group 3 (9.69 ± 1.80 MPa), and Group 4 (10.56 ± 1.75 MPa) (p < 0.05).
3. The mean µSBS to the end of enamel rod was significantly higher than that to the side of enamel rod in all group (p < 0.05).
This study compared the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of three single step adhesives to dentin.
Occlusal superficial dentin was exposed in fifteen human molars. They were assigned to three groups by used adhesives: Xeno group (Xeno III), Prompt group (Adper Prompt L-Pop), AQ group (AQ Bond).
Each adhesive was applied to dentin surface, and composite of same manufacturer was constructed. The bonded specimens were sectioned into sticks with an interface area approximately 1 mm2, and subjected to µTBS testing with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. The results of this study were as follows;
The µTBS to dentin was 48.78 ± 9.83 MPa for Xeno III, 30.22 ± 4.52 MPa for Adper Prompt L-Pop, and 26.31 ± 7.07 MPa for AQ Bond.
The mean µTBS of Xeno group was significantly higher than that of Prompt group and AQ group (p < 0.05).
There was no significant difference between the µTBS of Prompt group and AQ group.
This study evaluated the marginal microleakage of five single step adhesives. Class V cavity preparations with occlusal margins in enamel and gingival margins in dentin were prepared on both buccal and lingual surfaces of extracted human molar teeth. Prepared teeth were randomly divided into five groups and restored using one of the single step adhesives and composite resins: Prompt L-Pop/Filtek Z-250 (Group 1), AQ Bond/Metafil CX (Group 2), One-Up Bond F/Palfique Toughwell (Group 3), Futurabond/Admira (Group 4), Xeno III/Spectrum TPH (Group 5).
The restored teeth were thermocycled. Microleakage was assessed by dye penetration using 2% methylene blue dye solution. The teeth were bisected buccolingually and evaluated for microleakage under steromicroscope. The data were statistically analysed by Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney tests.
The results of this study were as follows;
Microleakage of enamel margins in group 3 was statistically higher than that in groups 1, 2, 4, 5 (p < 0.05). Microleakage of dentin margins in group 1 was statistically higher than that in groups 2, 5, and that in group 3 was statistically higher than that in groups 2, 4, 5 (p < 0.05). Dentin marginal microleakage was higher than enamel marginal microleakage in all experimental groups.
In conclusion, Prompt L-Pop showed the least leakage at enamel margin, and AQ Bond showed at dentin margin in this study. Marginal miroleakage in dentin was higher than that in enamel.
The purpose of this study was to compare the microhardness and the fluoride content of enamel and dentin around fluoride- or non fluoride-containing restorations. Forty extracted human teeth were used and prepared cervical cavities on proximal surface. Experimental teeth were divided into five groups. Group 1 : Prime & Bond NT and Z100, Group 2 : Prime & Bond NT and F2000, Group 3 : Scotchbond Multi-Purpose and Z100, Group 4 : Scothcbond Multi-purpose and F2000, Group 5 : Fuji II LC. The cavities were filled with dentin adhesives and restorative materials. After each tooth was bisected, one half was tested microhardness and the other half was analyzed the fluoride at the enamel and dentin by an EPMA-WDX device. The results were as follows:
1. There was no statistical difference among the microhardness of enamel surface in all group.
2. The microhardness at dentin of 100 µm point in Group 2 and 20 µm point in Group 4 was lower than that of normal dentin (p>0.05).
3. There was no statistical difference among the fluoride content of enamel surface in all group.
4. The fluoride content at the dentin of 30 µm point in Group 2 and 5 were higher than those at 100 µm and 200 µm point in Group 2 and normal dentin (p<0.05).
5. At the dentin of 30 µm point, Group 2 showed higher fluoride content than Group 1 and 3, and Group 5 showed higher fluoride content than other groups.
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 extracted 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(Group 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℃ and 55℃) 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 1<Group 3<Group 2<Group 4<Group 5<Group 6. The microleakage of Group 6 was significantly higher than that of Groups 1, 2 and 3(p<0.05).
2. At the enamel margins, without regard to pretreatment with IRM, the microleakage of Single Bond was lower than that of UniFil Bond.
3. Ranking of mean microleakage scores at the dentin margins was Group 4<Group 1<Group 5<Group 6<Group 3<Group 2. But there were no significant difference among microleakages of each group(p>0.05).
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).
This study evaluated the microleakage performance of four self-etcing primer adhesives(Clearfil SE Bond, Clearfil Liner Bond 2, UniFil Bond, and FL Bond) and one self-etching adhesive(Prompt L-Pop). Class V cavity preparations with occlusal margins in enamel and gingival margins in dentin were prepared on both buccal and lingual surfaces of 50 extracted human molar teeth. Prepared teeth were randomly divided into five groups and restored using one of five adhesives and composite resins: Prompt L-Pop/Filtek Z 250(Group 1), Clearfil SE Bond/Clearfil AP-X(Group 2), Clearfil Liner Bond 2/Clearfil AP-X(Group 3), UniFil Bond/UniFil F(Group 4), and FL Bond/Filtek Z 250(Group 5).
Following one day storage in room temperature water, the restored teeth were thermocycled for 500 cycles between 5℃ and 55℃. Marginal microleakage was assessed by dye penetration using 2% methylene blue dye. After 24 hours, the teeth were sectioned longitudinally and evaluated for microleakage under steromicroscope. The data were statistically analysed by Kruskal-Wallis Test, Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon signed ranked tests.
The results of this study were as follows;
1. The microleakges at both enamel and dentinal margins were the lowest in group 4, increasing among groups in the following order: group 2, follwed by group 5, follwed by group 1, and the highest in group 3.
2. At the enamel margins, the microleakage of group 3 was significantly higher than those of groups 2, 4 and 5(p<0.05), and also the microleakage of group 1 was statistically higher than those of groups 2 and 5(p<0.05).
3. At the dentinal margins, microleakage of group 3 was significantly higher than microleakages of groups 1, 2, 4 and 5(p<0.05).
4. Compared with microleakages between the enamel and dentinal margins of each group, groups 1, 4 and 5 at enamel margin and group 2 and group 3 at dentinal margin were higher microleakage. But there was no significant difference between enamel and dentinal microleakages of each group(p>0.05).