Microleakage in Class V Cavities Restored with Sandwich Technique: Self- Etch versus Total-Etch Bonding Systems
Journal of Dental School,
Vol. 33 No. 1 (2015),
7 March 2015
,
Page 74-79
https://doi.org/10.22037/jds.v33i1.24754
Abstract
Objective: Microleakage has always been a problem in restorative dentistry. To decrease microleakage, modern bonding systems, different application methods and sandwich technique have been recommended. The purpose of this study was to assess the microleakage in class V cavities restored with open sandwich technique using self-etch and total-etch bonding systems.
Methods: In this in vitro study, class V cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 20 extracted sound human third molars and restored with sandwich technique. Fuji II LC glass ionomer (GI) was applied to the cavity floor. After curing, half the cavities received Single Bond and the other half, Clearfil SE Bond application and were all restored with Z250 composite resin. Specimens were immersed in 2% fuchsin solution for 24 hours. After copious water irrigation, specimens were sectioned and evaluated under a stereomicroscope to determine microleakage. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test (p<0.05).
Results: The microleakage at the GI-composite interface was less than that at the occlusal and gingival margins; but this difference was not significant. No significant difference was found in microleakage between the two bonding agents in neither of the two layers.
Conclusion: The etch & rinse and self-etch systems are similar in terms of microleakage.
- Bonding
- Glass ionomer
- Microleakage
- Sandwich technique
- Self-etch system
- Total etch system
How to Cite
References
Kasraie S, Khamverdi Z. Comparison of the microleakage and shear bond strength of four current one component dentin bonding systems. Journal of Mashhad Dental School 2007; 31: 239-246.
Pahlavan A, Ghavam M, Arami S, Yasini E, Mirzaie M, M Kermanshah H, et al. Effect of flowable composite on microleakage of condensable composite restorations. Journal of Dental Medicine 2008; 21: 46-50.
Bolla M, Baltcheva E, Fortin D, Rompre P, St-George A. Evaluation of microleakage at the CEJ of class V cavities restored with four different adhesive systems. Eur Cell Mater 2005;9 (Suppl 1): 58-59.
Tjan AH, Castelnuovo J, Liu P. Bond strength of multi-step and simplified-step systems. Am J Dent 1996; 9: 269-272.
Freedman G, Leinfelder K. Seventh-generation adhesive systems. Dentistry today. 2002; 21: 106- 111.
Shadman N, Ebrahimi SHF, Molaie N. Microleakage of total-etch and self-etch adhesives in class V composite cavities. Journal of Dental Medicine 2010; 23: 227-234.
Maleknezhad F, Moghadas M, Lachin B. The effect of filler on microleakage of self-etch adhesives with dentin and SEM interfacial morphology evaluation. Journal of Mashhad Dental School 2007; 31: 117-124. [Persian]
Sjödin L, Uusitalo M, Van Dijken J. Resin modified glass ionomer cements. In vitro microleakage in direct class V and class II sandwich restorations. Swed Dent J 1995; 20: 77-86.
Ghavamnasiri M, Hajizadeh H, Sarabi N, Alizadeh M. Influence of different GI restorative techniques on microleakage of Cl II sandwich restorations. J Islamic Dent Assoc 2008; 20: 227- 233.
Davari AR, Danesh Kazemi AR, Mousavinasab M, Modaresi J, Mohammadi Z, Teimori S. In vitro microleakage evaluation of total-etch and self-etch bonding systems. Shiraz Univ Dent J 2010; 11: 28-34.
Bahrololoomi Z, Dastjerdi F, Mirhadi S. Comparison of shear bond strength of compoglass and glass ionomer to the dentin of primary molars. Shiraz Univ Dent J 2009; 9: 326-331.
Andersson‐Wenckert IE, Van Dijken JW, Hörstedt P. Modified Class II open sandwich restorations: evaluation of interfacial adaptation and influence of different restorative techniques. Eur J Oral Sci 2002; 110: 270-275.
Besnault C, Attal J. Simulated oral environment and microleakage of Class II resin-based composite and sandwich restorations. Am J Dent 2003; 16: 186-190.
Feigal R, Quelhas I. Clinical trial of a self-etching adhesive for sealant application: success at 24 months with Prompt L-Pop. Am J Dent 2003; 16: 249-251.
Hashimoto M, Ito S, Tay FR, Svizero NR, Sano H, Kaga M, et al. Fluid movement across the resin-dentin interface during and after bonding. J Dent Res 2004; 83: 843-848.
Deliperi S, Bardwell DN, Papathanasiou A, Perry R. Microleakage of resin-based liner materials and condensable composites using filled and unfilled adhesives. Am J Dent 2003; 16: 351-355.
Moosavi H, Moazzami S, Loh S, Salari S. Microleakage evaluation of core buildup composite resins with total-etch and self-etch adhesive systems. J Contemp Dent Pract 2010; 11: E009-E16.
Aboushala A, Kugel G, Hurley E. Class II composite resin restorations using glass-ionomer liners: microleakage studies. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1995; 21: 67-70.
Stockton LW, Tsang ST. Microlheakage of class II posterior composit restorations with gingival margins placed entirely within dentin. J Can Dent Assoc 2007; 73: 255.
Hirschfeld Z, Frenkel A, Zyskind D, Fuks A. Marginal leakage of class II glass ionomer- composite resin restorations: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 67: 148-153.
Shortall A, Asmussen E. Influence of dentin‐bonding agents and a glass‐ionomer base on the cervical marginal seal of Class II composite restorations. Scand J Dent Res 1988; 96: 590-594.
- Abstract Viewed: 222 times
- PDF Downloaded: 312 times