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.

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).