MICROLEAKAGE AND MARGINAL HYBRID LAYER OF DENTIN ADHESIVES

Young-Gon Cho; Young-Kwan Kim; Jong-Mo Ahn

doi:10.5395/JKACD.2002.27.1.34

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Restor Dent Endod > Volume 27(1); 2002 > Article

Original Article MICROLEAKAGE AND MARGINAL HYBRID LAYER OF DENTIN ADHESIVES: Young-Gon Cho, Young-Kwan Kim, Jong-Mo Ahn; Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2002;27(1):34-43.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2002.27.1.34
Published online: January 14, 2002

Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Chosun University

Department of Oral Medicine, College of Dentistry, Chosun University

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.

19 Views
0 Download

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
REFERENCES

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare microleakage and marginal hybrid layer in class Ⅴ restorations using two one-bottle adhesives and one self-etching adhesive.

Class Ⅴ cavity preparations with occlusal margins in enamel and gingival margins in dentin were prepared on buccal and lingual surfaces of 30 extracted human molar teeth. Prepared teeth were randomly divided into three treatment groups (n=30) and restored with three adhesives and composites: Single Bond/Filtek Z-250 (Group 1), Prime&BondNT/Esthet∙X (Group 2), UniFil Bond/UniFil F (Group 3).

For microleakage, samples were stored in room temperature water for 24 hours, thermocycled, stained with 2% methylene blue dye, sectioned into halves, scored and analysed using Mann-whitney test and Wilcoxon signed rank sum test.

For marginal hybrid layer, samples were sectioned into halves, treated with 10% phosphoric acid for 5 seconds, stored in 5% NaOCL solution for 24 hours, dried and gold coated. Occlusal and gingival margins of each sample were inspected under SEM.
The results of this study were as follows;
1. Microleakage at the occlusal margins was not evident in group 1 and group 2, but it showed in group 3 (p<0.05).
2. Microleakage in group 1 and group 3 was significantly lower than in group 2 at gingival margins (p<0.05).
3. Microleakage at gingival margins was greater than at occlusal margins in group 1 and group 2, but microleakage at occlusal margins was greater than at gingival margins in group 3 (p<0.05).
4. In group 1 and group 2, no gaps at occlusal margins showed. But gaps showed in group 3. Occlusal margins were free from a hybrid layer in all groups.
5. The thickness of the marginal hybrid layers was 2.5∼5 μm thick in group 5 μm thick in group 2 and 1.5 μm thick in group 3.
6. There was no corelation between microleakage and thickness of marginal hybrid layer.
In coclusion, the effect of dentin adhesives on microleakge in class Ⅴ composite restorations was excellent when one-bottle adhesives were applied on enamel margin, and it was good when a self-etching adhesive was applied on dentinal margin. There was no corelation between microleakage and thickness of marginal hybrid layer.

Fig. 1.

Microleakage in group 1 (Single Bond/Filtek Z-250)

Microleakage did not showed at occlusal margin(Do).

Microleakage of degree 1(D1) was showed at gingival margin (× 15).

Fig. 2.

Microleakage in group 2 (Prime&Bond NT/Esthet∙X)

Microleakage did not showed at occlusal margin(Do).

Microleakage of degree 3(D3) showed at gingival margin (× 15).

Fig. 3.

Microleakage in group 3 (UniFil Bond/UniFil F)

Microleakage of degree 2(D2) showed at occlusal margin.

Microleakage of degree 1(D1) showed at gingival margin (× 15).

Fig. 4.

SEM of occlusal margin in group 1 (× 500)

Close adaptation between interface of resin(R) and enamel(E) was evident and no gaps showed at occlusal margins.

Hybrid layer was free.

Fig. 5.

SEM of occlusal margin in group 2 (× 500)

Close adaptation between interface of resin(R) and enamel(E) was evident and no gaps showed at occlusal margins. Hybrid layer was free.

Fig. 6.

SEM of occlusal margin in group 3 (× 500)

Tiny gaps(g) between interface of resin(R) and enamel(E) showed. Hybrid layer was free.

Fig. 7.

SEM of gingival margin in group 1 (× 500)

Thickness of the marginal hybrid layers(h) was 2.5∼5μm and tiny gaps(g) between interface of resin(R) and detin(D) showed.

Fig. 8.

SEM of gingival margin in group 2 (× 500)

Thickness of the marginal hybrid layers(h) was 5μm and wide gaps(g) between interface of resin(R) and dentin(D) showed.

Fig. 9.

SEM of gingival margin in group 3 (× 500)

Thickness of the marginal hybrid layers(h) was 1.5μm and tiny gaps(g) between interface of resin(R) and dentin(D) showed.

Table 1.

Group classification and adhesives/composite resins used in this study

Group	Adhesive	Composite resin	Manufacturer
1	Single Bond	Filtek Z-250	3M Dental Products
2	Prime&Bond NT	Esthet. X	Dentsply/Caulk
3	UniFil Bond	UniFil F	GC Co.

Table 2.

Adhesive systems and compositions

Adhesive system	Etchants or self-etching primer	Composition of adhesive
Single Bond	35% H₃PO₄	bis-GMA, dimethacrylates, HEMA, polyalkenoic acid copolymer, initiator, 3%∼8% water, ethanol
Prime&Bond NT	34% H₃PO₄	PENTA, UDMA+T-resin+D-resin, butylated hydroxytoluene, 4-ethyl dimethylaminobenzoate, cetilamine hydrofluoride, camphoroquinone, acetone, silica nanofiller
UniFil Bond	polycarboxylic acid monomer, HEMA, ethanol, distilled water	urethane dimethacrylate, dimethacrylate, HEMA, silica filler

Table 3.

Distribution of microleakage scores at occlusal and gingival margins

Score\Group	Occlusal Margin					Gingival Margin
Score\Group	0	1	2	3	n	0	1	2	3	n
1	10	0	0	0	10	7	1	0	2	10
2	10	0	0	0	10	0	1	1	8	10
3	1	3	5	1	10	4	6	0	0	10

Group 1 : Single Bond/Filtek Z-250,

Group 2: Prime&BondNT/Esthet∙X,

Group 3 : UniFil Bond/UniFil F

Table 4.

Statistical analysis of microleakage at occlusal margin between each group by Mann-Whitney test

Group 1 : Single Bond/Filtek Z-250,

Group 2 : Prime&BondNT/Esthet∙X,

Group 3 : UniFil Bond/UniFil F

* : significant differences (p<0.05)

Table 5.

Statistical analysis of microleakage at gingival margin between each group by Mann-Whitney test

Group 1 : Single Bond/Filtek Z-250,

Group 2 : Prime&BondNT/Esthet∙X,

Group 3 : UniFil Bond/UniFil F

* : significant differences (p<0.05)

Table 6.

Statistical analysis of microleakage at occlusal and gingival margin between each group by Wilcoxon signed rank sum test

Group\Margin	1	2	3
Occlusal	N	＊	＊
N	＊	＊	Gingival

Group 1 : Single Bond/Filtek Z-250,

Group 2 : Prime&BondNT/Esthet∙X,

Group 3 : UniFil Bond/UniFil F

N : no-significnat differences,

* : significant differences (p<0.05)

REFERENCES

1. Buonocore M.C.. Simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surface.. J. Dent. Res. 34(6):849-853. 1955.Article PubMed PDF
2. Swift E.J., Perigao J., Heymann H.O.. Bonding to enamel and dentin : A brief history and state of the art.. Quint. Int. 26(2):95-110. 1995.
3. Zheng L., Pereira P.N.R., Nakajima M., Sano H., Tagami J. Relationship between adhesive thickness and microtensile bond strength.. Oper. Dent. 26:97-104. 2001.PubMed
4. Nakayabashi N.. Resin reinforced dentin due to infiltration of monomers into the dentin at the adhesive interface.. The J. of the Japanese Society for Dental Materials and Devices 1:78-81. 1982.
5. Reeves G.W., Fitchie J.G., Hembree J.H. Jr., Puckett A.D.. Microleakage of new dentin bonding systems using human and bovine teeth.. Oper. Dent. 20(6):230-235. 1995.PubMed
6. Al-Ehaideb A.A., Mohammed H.. Microleakage of “one-bottle”dentin adhesives.. Oper. Dent. 26:172-175. 2001.
7. Gordan V.V., Vargas M.A., Cobb D.S., Denehy G.E.. Evaluation of adhesive systems using acidic primers.. Am. J. Dent. 10(5):219-223. 1997.PubMed
8. Nakajima M., Sano H., Urabe I., Tagami J., Pashley D.H.. Bond strength of single-bottle dentin adhesives to caries-affected dentin.. Oper. Dent. 25:2-10. 2000.PubMed
9. Ogata M., Okuda M., Nakajima M., Pereira P.N.R., Sano H., Tagami J.. Influence of the direction of tubules on bond strength to dentin.. Oper. Dent. 26:27-35. 2001.PubMed
10. Prati C., Pashley D.H., Chersoni S., Mongiorgi R.. Marginal hybrid layer in class V restorations.. Oper. Dent. 25:228-233. 2000.PubMed
11. Yoshiyama M., Urayama A., Kimochi T., Matsuo T., Pashley D.H.. Comparison of conventional vs self-etching adhesives bonds to caries-affected dentin.. Oper. Dent. 25:163-169. 2000.PubMed
12. Gallo J.R., Burgess J.O., Xu X.. Effect of delayed application on shear bond strength of four fifth-generation bonding systems.. Oper. Dent. 26:27-35. 2001.PubMed
13. Nakayabashi N.. Dentinal bonding mechanism.. Quint. Int. 22(2):73-74. 1991.
14. Kanca J.. Effect of resin primer solvents and surface wetness on resin composite bond strength to dentin.. Am. J. Dent. 5(4):213-215. 1992.PubMed
15. Gallo J.R., Comeaux R., Haines B., Xu X., Burgess J.O.. Shear bond strength of four filled dentin bonding systems.. Oper. Dent. 26:44-47. 2001.PubMed
16. Pitter A.V., Heymann H.O, Swift E. Jr., Perdigao J., Rosa B.T.. Effect of different re-wetting techniques on dentin shear bond strengths.. J. Esth. Dent. 12:85-96. 2000.
17. Hannig M., Reinhardt K.J., Bott B.. Composite-to dentin bond strength, micromorphology of the bonded dentin interface and marginal adaptation of class Ⅱ composite resin restorations using self-etching primers.. Oper. Dent. 26:157-165. 2001.
18. Chigara H., Yukitani W., Hasegawa T., Manabe A., Itoh K., Hayakawa T., Debari K., Wakumoto S., Hisamitsu H.. Self-etching dentin primers containing phenyl-P.. J. Dent. Res. 73(5):1088-1095. 1994.Article PubMed PDF
19. Rosa B.T., Perdigao J.. Bond strengths of nonrinsing adhesives.. Quint. Int. 31:353-358. 2000.
20. Watanabe I., Nakayabashi N., Pashley D.H.. Bonding to ground dentin by a Phenyl-P self-etching primer.. J. Dent. Res. 73(6):1212-1220. 1994.Article PubMed PDF
21. Nakayabashi N., sami Y.. Bonding to intact dentin.. J. Dent. Res. 75(9):1706-1715. 1996.Article PubMed PDF
22. Bakmeier W.W., Los A.A., Triolo P.T.. Bond strength and SEM evaluation of Clearfil Liner Bond 2.. Am. J. Dent. 8:289-293. 1995.PubMed
23. Kanemura N., Sano H., Tagami J.. “Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces.”. J. Dent. 27:523-530. 1999.Article PubMed
24. Ogata M., Harada N., Yamaguchi S., Nakajima M., Pereira P.N.R., Tagami J.. Effect of different burs on dentin bond strengths of self-etching primer bonding systems.. Oper. Dent. 26:375-382. 2001.PubMed
25. Latta M.A., Barkmeier W.W., Triolo P.T., Cavel W.T., Blankenau R.J.. One year clinical evaluation of the Clearfil Liner Bond 2 system.. J. Dent. Res. 76(162(Abstact #1186)):1997.
26. Meiers J.C., Kazemi R., Meier C.D.. Microleakage of packable composite resins.. Oper. Dent. 26:121-126. 2001.
27. Davidson C.L., Degee A.J., Feilzer A.J.. The competition between the composite-dentin bond strength and polymeriztion contraction stress.. J. Dent. Res. 63(12):1396-1399. 1984.Article PubMed PDF
28. Kemp-Scholte C.M., Davidson C.L.. Complete marginal seal of Class Ⅴ resin composite restorations effected by increased flexibility.. J. Dent. Res. 69(6):1240-1243. 1990.Article PubMed PDF
29. Kidd E.A.. Microleakage: A review.. J. Dent. Res. 47(5):199-205. 1976.Article PubMed
30. Bergenholtz G., Cox C.F., Loesche W.J., Syed S.A.. Bacterial leakage around dental restorations: Its effect on the dental pulp.. J. Oral. Pathology. 11(6):439-450. 1982.Article
31. Van Meerbeek B., Willems G., Celis J.P., Roos J.R., Braem M., Lambrechts P., Vanherele G.. Assesment by Nano-indentation of hardness and elasticity of resin-dentin bonding area.. J. Dent. Res. 72(10):1434-1442. 1993.Article PubMed PDF
32. Fusayama T., Nakamura M., Kurosaki N., Iwaku M.. Non-pressure adhesion of a new adhesive restorative resin.. J. Dent. Res. 58(4):1363-1370. 1979.Article PubMed PDF

Tables & Figures

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

MICROLEAKAGE AND MARGINAL HYBRID LAYER OF DENTIN ADHESIVES

J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2002;27(1):34-43. Published online January 14, 2002

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2002.27.1.34

XML Download

Figure

MICROLEAKAGE AND MARGINAL HYBRID LAYER OF DENTIN ADHESIVES

Fig. 1. Microleakage in group 1 (Single Bond/Filtek Z-250) Microleakage did not showed at occlusal margin(Do). Microleakage of degree 1(D1) was showed at gingival margin (× 15).

Fig. 2. Microleakage in group 2 (Prime&Bond NT/Esthet∙X) Microleakage did not showed at occlusal margin(Do). Microleakage of degree 3(D3) showed at gingival margin (× 15).

Fig. 3. Microleakage in group 3 (UniFil Bond/UniFil F) Microleakage of degree 2(D2) showed at occlusal margin. Microleakage of degree 1(D1) showed at gingival margin (× 15).

Fig. 4. SEM of occlusal margin in group 1 (× 500) Close adaptation between interface of resin(R) and enamel(E) was evident and no gaps showed at occlusal margins. Hybrid layer was free.

Fig. 5. SEM of occlusal margin in group 2 (× 500) Close adaptation between interface of resin(R) and enamel(E) was evident and no gaps showed at occlusal margins. Hybrid layer was free.

Fig. 6. SEM of occlusal margin in group 3 (× 500) Tiny gaps(g) between interface of resin(R) and enamel(E) showed. Hybrid layer was free.

Fig. 7. SEM of gingival margin in group 1 (× 500) Thickness of the marginal hybrid layers(h) was 2.5∼5μm and tiny gaps(g) between interface of resin(R) and detin(D) showed.

Fig. 8. SEM of gingival margin in group 2 (× 500) Thickness of the marginal hybrid layers(h) was 5μm and wide gaps(g) between interface of resin(R) and dentin(D) showed.

Fig. 9. SEM of gingival margin in group 3 (× 500) Thickness of the marginal hybrid layers(h) was 1.5μm and tiny gaps(g) between interface of resin(R) and dentin(D) showed.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 9.

MICROLEAKAGE AND MARGINAL HYBRID LAYER OF DENTIN ADHESIVES

Group	Adhesive	Composite resin	Manufacturer
1	Single Bond	Filtek Z-250	3M Dental Products
2	Prime&Bond NT	Esthet. X	Dentsply/Caulk
3	UniFil Bond	UniFil F	GC Co.

Adhesive system	Etchants or self-etching primer	Composition of adhesive
Single Bond	35% H₃PO₄	bis-GMA, dimethacrylates, HEMA, polyalkenoic acid copolymer, initiator, 3%∼8% water, ethanol
Prime&Bond NT	34% H₃PO₄	PENTA, UDMA+T-resin+D-resin, butylated hydroxytoluene, 4-ethyl dimethylaminobenzoate, cetilamine hydrofluoride, camphoroquinone, acetone, silica nanofiller
UniFil Bond	polycarboxylic acid monomer, HEMA, ethanol, distilled water	urethane dimethacrylate, dimethacrylate, HEMA, silica filler

Score\Group	Occlusal Margin					Gingival Margin
Score\Group	0	1	2	3	n	0	1	2	3	n
1	10	0	0	0	10	7	1	0	2	10
2	10	0	0	0	10	0	1	1	8	10
3	1	3	5	1	10	4	6	0	0	10

Group\Margin	1	2	3
Occlusal	N	＊	＊
N	＊	＊	Gingival

Table 1. Group classification and adhesives/composite resins used in this study

Table 2. Adhesive systems and compositions

Table 3. Distribution of microleakage scores at occlusal and gingival margins

Group 1 : Single Bond/Filtek Z-250,

Group 2: Prime&BondNT/Esthet∙X,

Group 3 : UniFil Bond/UniFil F

Table 4. Statistical analysis of microleakage at occlusal margin between each group by Mann-Whitney test

Group 1 : Single Bond/Filtek Z-250,

Group 2 : Prime&BondNT/Esthet∙X,

Group 3 : UniFil Bond/UniFil F

* : significant differences (p<0.05)

Table 5. Statistical analysis of microleakage at gingival margin between each group by Mann-Whitney test

Group 1 : Single Bond/Filtek Z-250,

Group 2 : Prime&BondNT/Esthet∙X,

Group 3 : UniFil Bond/UniFil F

* : significant differences (p<0.05)

Table 6. Statistical analysis of microleakage at occlusal and gingival margin between each group by Wilcoxon signed rank sum test

Group 1 : Single Bond/Filtek Z-250,

Group 2 : Prime&BondNT/Esthet∙X,

Group 3 : UniFil Bond/UniFil F

N : no-significnat differences,

* : significant differences (p<0.05)