Warning: mkdir(): Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 81
Warning: fopen(upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-12.txt): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 83
Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 84 Surface roughness and microleakage of class V composite restorations : Effect of surface sealing
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: July 29, 2004 • Revised: November 9, 2004 • Accepted: December 7, 2004
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.
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.PubMed
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.PubMed
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.PubMed
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.PubMed
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.PubMed
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.PubMed
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.PubMed
8. Dickinson GL, Leinfelder KF. Assessing the long-term effect of a surface penetrating sealant. J Am Dent Assoc. 1993;124(7):68-72.ArticlePubMed
9. Rueggeberg FA, Margeson DH. The effect of oxygen inhibition on an unfilled/filled composite system. J Dent Res. 1990;69(10):1652-1658.ArticlePubMedPDF
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.ArticlePubMed
11. Kawai K, Leinfelder KF. Effect of surface-penetrating sealant on composite wear. Dent Mater. 1993;9(2):108-113.ArticlePubMed
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.ArticlePubMed
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.ArticlePubMed
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.ArticlePubMed
15. Ambjornsen E, Holland RI. In vitro abrasion of two acrylic veneers. Dent Mater. 1994;10(2):107-110.ArticlePubMed
16. Goldstein GR, Lerner T. The effect of toothbrushing on a hybrid composite resin. J Prosthet Dent. 1991;66(4):498-500.ArticlePubMed
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.PubMed
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.PubMed
19. Ehrnford L. Surface microstructure of composite resins after toothbrush-dentifrice abrasion. Acta Odontol Scand. 1983;41(4):241-245.ArticlePubMed
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)