Microleakage of different adhesive resin systems in class v composite restorations: effect of thermal cycling and load cycling
EDJ-Egyptian Dental Journal. 2005; 51 (2[Part 1]): 555-564
em En
| IMEMR
| ID: emr-196527
Biblioteca responsável:
EMRO
Objective: the aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage of five different hydrophilic adhesive resin systems and the effect of thermal and load cycling on microleakage in class V composite restoration
Method and materials: Buccal and lingual class V cavities were prepared with enamel and dentin margins in 75 molar teeth and randomly divided into five groups of 15 molar each. Group 1 was bonded with Syntac Classic [three-bottle] adhesive, group 2 with Excite "one-bottle" fluoride-free adhesive, group 3 with Stae "one-bottle" fluoride containing adhesive, group 4 with AdheSE, two-step, self-etch adhesive and group 5 with Prompt-L-Pop, all-in-one, self-etch adhesive according to the manufacturer's instructions. All preparations were restored with Tetric Cer-am, microhybrid composite resin. From each group 5 molars [10 restorations] were immediately immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin solution after finishing and kept there for 24 hours to examin microleakage. Other 5 molars of each group were thermocycled [5 - 55°C, 20s dwell time, 500 cycles] and then immersed in the dye solution. The remaining 5 molars of each group were subjected to occlusal load cycling [80-160 N, 5 cycles/sec. 200.000 cycles] prior to immersion in the dye solution. The specimens were sectioned vertically and buccolingually and microleakage was evaluated on a scale of 0 to 3.
Results: For the enamel margins, statistical analysis revealed that there was no significant difference between the tested materials but AdheSE provide the least marginal adaptation while the best results obtained with Syntac Classic. Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference among the groups in dentinal microleakage but AdheSE showed the best result. Both thermal and load cycling had no significant effect on microleakage among the groups either in enamel or dentinal microleakage but the thermocycled and load cycled specimens showed greatest micro-leakage
Conclusion: Among the five adhesive systems used in this study, Syntac Classic had the least microleakage in enamel; however, there was no statistically significant difference among the groups in enamel margins. AdheSE had the.least microleakage in dentin; however, there was no statistically significant difference among the groups on dentin margins. Both thermal and load cycling had no significant effect on microleakage among the groups.
Method and materials: Buccal and lingual class V cavities were prepared with enamel and dentin margins in 75 molar teeth and randomly divided into five groups of 15 molar each. Group 1 was bonded with Syntac Classic [three-bottle] adhesive, group 2 with Excite "one-bottle" fluoride-free adhesive, group 3 with Stae "one-bottle" fluoride containing adhesive, group 4 with AdheSE, two-step, self-etch adhesive and group 5 with Prompt-L-Pop, all-in-one, self-etch adhesive according to the manufacturer's instructions. All preparations were restored with Tetric Cer-am, microhybrid composite resin. From each group 5 molars [10 restorations] were immediately immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin solution after finishing and kept there for 24 hours to examin microleakage. Other 5 molars of each group were thermocycled [5 - 55°C, 20s dwell time, 500 cycles] and then immersed in the dye solution. The remaining 5 molars of each group were subjected to occlusal load cycling [80-160 N, 5 cycles/sec. 200.000 cycles] prior to immersion in the dye solution. The specimens were sectioned vertically and buccolingually and microleakage was evaluated on a scale of 0 to 3.
Results: For the enamel margins, statistical analysis revealed that there was no significant difference between the tested materials but AdheSE provide the least marginal adaptation while the best results obtained with Syntac Classic. Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference among the groups in dentinal microleakage but AdheSE showed the best result. Both thermal and load cycling had no significant effect on microleakage among the groups either in enamel or dentinal microleakage but the thermocycled and load cycled specimens showed greatest micro-leakage
Conclusion: Among the five adhesive systems used in this study, Syntac Classic had the least microleakage in enamel; however, there was no statistically significant difference among the groups in enamel margins. AdheSE had the.least microleakage in dentin; however, there was no statistically significant difference among the groups on dentin margins. Both thermal and load cycling had no significant effect on microleakage among the groups.
Buscar no Google
Índice:
IMEMR
Idioma:
En
Revista:
Egypt. Dent. J.
Ano de publicação:
2005