The influence of IRM temporary restorations on marginal microleakage of dentin adhesives

Young-Gon Cho; Hyun-Kyung Kim; Young-Gon Lee

doi:10.5395/JKACD.2003.28.1.001

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Restor Dent Endod > Volume 28(1); 2003 > Article

Original Article The influence of IRM temporary restorations on marginal microleakage of dentin adhesives: Young-Gon Cho, Hyun-Kyung Kim, Young-Gon Lee; Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2003;28(1):1-10.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2003.28.1.001
Published online: January 31, 2003

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

Corresponding author (ygcho@mail.chosun.ac.kr)

20 Views
0 Download

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
REFERENCES

Abstract

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).
Keywords: Temporary restoration; Marginal microleakage; IRM; Dentin adhesives; Self-etching primer; One bottle adhesive

REFERENCES

1. Bayne SC, Heyman HO, Swift EJ Jr. Update on dental composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 1994;125(6):687-701.Article PubMed
2. Murray PE, Hafez AA, Smith AJ, Cox CF. Bacterial microleakage and pulp inflammation associated with various restorative materials. Dent Mater. 2002;18: 470-478.Article PubMed
3. Yap AUJ, Shah KC, Loh EJ, Sim SS, Tan CC. Influence of eugenol-containing temporary restorations on bond strength of composite to dentin. Oper Dent. 2001;26: 556-561.PubMed
4. Abou Hashieh I, Camps J, Dejou J, Franquin JC. Eugenol diffusion through dentin related to dentin hydraulic conductance. Dent Mater. 1998;14: 229-236.Article PubMed
5. Hume WR. An analysis of the release and diffusion through dentin of eugenol from zinc oxide-eugenol mixtures. J Dent Res. 1984;63(6):881-884.Article PubMed PDF
6. Kielbassa AM, Attin T, Hellwig E. Diffusion behavior of eugenol from zinc oxide-eugenol mixtures through human and bovine dentin in vitro. Oper Dent. 1997;22(1):15-20.PubMed
7. Taira J, Ikemoto T, Yoneya T, Hagi A, Murakami A, Makino K. Essential oils phenyl propanoids. Useful as OH scavenger? Free Radic Res Commun. 1992;16: 197-204.PubMed
8. Grajower R, Hirschfeld Z, Zalkind M. Compatibility of a composite resin with pulp insulating materials. A scanning electron microscope study. J Prosthet Dent. 1974;32(1):70-77.Article PubMed
9. Lingard GL, Davies EH, Von Fraunhofer JA. The interaction between lining materials and composite resin restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil. 1981;8(2):121-129.Article PubMed
10. Marshall SJ, Marshall GW, Hardcourt JK. The influence of various cavity bases on the micro-hardness of composite. Aust Dent J. 1982;27(5):291-295.PubMed
11. Baier RE. Principles of adhesion. Oper Dent. 1992;Suppl 5. 1-9.
12. Al-Ehaideb AA, Mohammed H. Microleakage of "one-bottle" dentin adhesives. Oper Dent. 2001;26: 172-175.
13. Gordan VV, Vargas MA, Cobb DS, Denehy GE. Evaluation of adhesive systems using acidic primers. Am J Dent. 1997;10(5):219-223.PubMed
14. Nakajima M, Sano H, Urabe I, Tagami J, Pashley DH. Bond strength of single-bottle dentin adhesives to caries-affected dentin. Oper Dent. 2000;25: 2-10.PubMed
15. Ogata M, Okuda M, Nakajima M, Pereira PNR, Sano H, Tagami J. Influence of the direction of tubules on bond strength to dentin. Oper Dent. 2001;26: 27-35.PubMed
16. Prati C, Pashley DH, Chersoni S, Mongiorgi R. Marginal hybrid layer in class V restorations. Oper Dent. 2000;25: 228-233.PubMed
17. Yoshiyama M, Urayama A, Kimochi T, Matsuo T, Pashley DH. Comparison of conventional vs self-etching adhesives bonds to caries-affected dentin. Oper Dent. 2000;25: 163-169.PubMed
18. Cho YG, Kim YK, Ahn JM. Microleakage and marginal hybrid layer of dentin adhesives. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2002;27(1):34-41.Article
19. Gallo JR, Burgess JO, Xu X. Effect of delayed application on shear bond strength of four fifth-generation bonding systems. Oper Dent. 2001;26: 48-51.PubMed
20. Nakabayashi N. Dentinal bonding mechanism. Quintessence Int. 1991;22(2):73-74.PubMed
21. Kanca J. Effect of resin primer solvents and surface wetness on resin composite bond strength to dentin. Am J Dent. 1992;5(4):213-215.PubMed
22. Ritter AV, Heyman HO, Swift E Jr, Perdigao J, Rosa BT. Effect of different re-wetting techniques on dentin shear bond strength. J Esthet Dent. 2000;12: 85-96.PubMed
23. Zheng L, Pereira PNR, Nakajima M, Sano H, Tagami J. Relationship between adhesive thickness and microtensile bond strength. Oper Dent. 2001;26: 97-104.PubMed
24. Hanning M, Reinhardt KJ, 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. 2001;26: 157-165.
25. Chigira 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. 1994;73(5):1088-1095.Article PubMed PDF
26. Rosa BT, Perdigao J. Bond strengths of nonrinsing adhesives. Quintessence Int. 2000;31: 353-358.PubMed
27. Schwartz R, Davis R, Mayhew R. The effect of a ZOE temporary cement on the bond strength of a resin luting cement. Am J Dent. 1990;3(1):28-30.PubMed
28. Jung M, Ganss C, Senger S. Effect of eugenol-containing temporary cement on bond strength of composite to enamel. Oper Dent. 1998;23(2):63-68.PubMed
29. Xie J, Power JM, McGuckin RS. In vitro bond strength of two adhesives to enamel and dentin under normal and contaminated conditions. Dent Mater. 1993;9(5):295-299.Article PubMed
30. Terata R, Nakashima K, Obara M, Kubota M. Characterization of enamel and dentin surface after removal of temporary cement-effect of temporary cement on tensile bond strength of resin luting cement. Dent Mater J. 1994;13(2):148-154.PubMed
31. Ganss C, Jung M. Effect of eugenol-containing temporary cement on bond strength of composite to dentin. Oper Dent. 1998;23(2):55-62.PubMed
32. Kelsey WP, Latta MA, Blankenau RJ. Effect of provision restorations on dentin bond strength of resin cements. Am J Dent. 1998;11: 67-70.
33. Markowitz K, Moynihan M, Liu M, Kim S. Biologic properties of eugenol and zinc oxide-eugenol. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1992;73: 729-737.Article PubMed
34. Jang HS, Cho KJ. Effect of Temporary Cement on Tensile Bond Strength of Dentin Bonding Agent. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 1995;20(2):685-698.
35. Woody TL, Davis RD. The effect of eugenol-containing and eugenol free temporary cements on microleakage in resin bonded restorations. Oper Dent. 1992;17(5):175-180.PubMed
36. Peutzfeldt A, Asmunssen E. Influence of engenol-containing temporary cement on efficacy of dentin-bonding system. Eur J Oral Sci. 1999;107(1):65-69.PubMed
37. Yap AUJ, Shah KC, Loh EJ, Sim SS, Tan CC. Influence of ZOE temporary restorations on microleakage in composite restoration. Oper Dent. 2002;27: 142-146.PubMed
38. Hannig M, Reinhardt KJ, Bott B. Self-etching primer vs phosphoric acid: an alternative concept for composite-to-enamel bonding. Oper Dent. 1999;24: 172-180.PubMed
39. Torii Y, Itou R, Hikasa S, Iwata Y. Enamel tensile bond strength and morphology of resin-enamel interface created by acid etching system with or without moisture and self-etching priming system. J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29: 528-533.Article PubMed
40. Perdigao J, Lopes L, Lambrechts P. Effect of self-etching primer on enamel shear bond strengths and SEM morphology. Am J Dent. 1997;10: 141-146.PubMed
41. Nakanuma K, Arisue K, Kajiwara A, Niinuma A, Murakami Y, Yamazaki M, Hayakawa T, Nemoto K. Evaluation of new type of commercially available adhesive systems-effect of total treatment for enamel and dentin. Jpn J Conserv Dent. 1996;39: 304-314.
42. Terata R. Characterization of enamel and dentin surfaces after removal of temporary cement - study on removal of temporary cement. Dent Mater J. 1993;12: 18-28.PubMed
43. Dibdin GH, Poole DF. Surface area and pore size analysis for human enamel and dentin by water vapour sorption. Arch Oral Biol. 1982;27: 235-241.PubMed
44. Finger WJ, Fritz UB. Resin bonding to enamel and dentin with one-component UDMA/HEMA adhesives. Eur J Oral Sci. 1997;105(2):183-186.Article PubMed
45. Uno S, Inoue H, Finger WJ, Inouw S, Sano H. Microtensile bond strength evaluation of three adhesive systems in cervical dentin cavities. J Adhes Dent. 2001;3: 333-341.PubMed

Fig. 1

Numbers of leakage scores of each group at enamel margins

Fig. 2

Numbers of leakage scores of each group at dentin margins

Table 1

Materials and their manufacturers

Table 2

Adhesive systems and their compositions

Table 3

Group classification

Table 4

Distribution of microleakage scores and means at enamel margins

Table 5

Distribution of microleakage scores and means at dentin margins

Table 6

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

^*: significant differences (p<0.05),

- : no-significant differences (p>0.05)

Table 7

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

- : no-significant differences (p>0.05)

Table 8

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

^*: significant differences (p<0.05), - : no-significant differences (p>0.05)

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

The influence of IRM temporary restorations on marginal microleakage of dentin adhesives

J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2003;28(1):1-10. Published online January 31, 2003

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2003.28.1.001

XML Download

Figure

The influence of IRM temporary restorations on marginal microleakage of dentin adhesives

Fig. 1 Numbers of leakage scores of each group at enamel margins

Fig. 2 Numbers of leakage scores of each group at dentin margins

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

The influence of IRM temporary restorations on marginal microleakage of dentin adhesives

Table 1

Materials and their manufacturers

Table 2

Adhesive systems and their compositions

Table 3

Group classification

Table 4

Distribution of microleakage scores and means at enamel margins

Table 5

Distribution of microleakage scores and means at dentin margins

Table 6

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

^*: significant differences (p<0.05),

- : no-significant differences (p>0.05)

Table 7

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

- : no-significant differences (p>0.05)

Table 8

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

^*: significant differences (p<0.05), - : no-significant differences (p>0.05)

Table 1 Materials and their manufacturers

Table 2 Adhesive systems and their compositions

Table 3 Group classification

Table 4 Distribution of microleakage scores and means at enamel margins

Table 5 Distribution of microleakage scores and means at dentin margins

Table 6 Statistical analysis of microleakage at enamel margin between each group by Mann-Whitney test

^*: significant differences (p<0.05),

- : no-significant differences (p>0.05)

Table 7 Statistical analysis of microleakage at dentin margin between each group by Mann-Whitney test

- : no-significant differences (p>0.05)

Table 8 Statistical analysis of microleakage at enamel and dentin margin between each group by Wilcoxon signed rank sum test