The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 5 ( September-October, 2012 ) > List of Articles


Comparison of Microleakage of Composite Restorations using Fifth and Sixth Generation Dentin Bonding Agent: An in vivo Study

Pooran Samimi, Mehrdad Barekatain, Samaneh Alaei

Citation Information : Samimi P, Barekatain M, Alaei S. Comparison of Microleakage of Composite Restorations using Fifth and Sixth Generation Dentin Bonding Agent: An in vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012; 13 (5):632-636.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1200

Published Online: 01-02-2013

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2012; The Author(s).



The success of bonded restorations depends on effective bonding between restorative materials and tooth structure, and it prevents microleakage. New dentin bonding systems have been introduced which promotes this concept. The aim of this study was to compare the amount of microleakage between ‘single bond’ vs ‘Prompt L-Pop’ during different time periods.

Materials and methods

In this clinical trial study, 60 nonretentive class five cavities were prepared on buccal surfaces of human premolars which were scheduled to be removed for orthodontic purposes. The cavities were restored using two different bonding agents; fifth generation (Single Bond) and sixth generation (Prompt L-Pop) and then filled with resin composite (Filtek Z-250). The samples in both groups were extracted after placing the restoration in three periods of time: Immediately, 1 week and 6 months postplacement. Specimens were sealed with two layers of nail varnish except for 1 mm around restoration and immersed in a silver nitrate solution for 24 hours. The teeth were then sectioned longitudinally and the degree of microleakage was determined by stereomicroscope based on standard usual criteria.


Single bond showed more leakage at dentin margin than enamel margin in all three extraction periods and differences were significant among three groups (p < 0.05). In samples which were restored with Prompt L-Pop only in groups of 6 months there were significant differences between enamel and dentin margins. At enamel margin there were no significant differences between microleakage of groups according to the passage of time (p > 0.05).


The results of this study using two different bonding systems, indicate that adhesion to enamel was more valuable than dentin and perhaps systems that include self-etching primers are less sensitive to remaining moisture on dentin and they are less affected during different time periods.

How to cite this article

Samimi P, Barekatain M, Alaei S. Comparison of Microleakage of Composite Restorations using Fifth and Sixth Generation Dentin Bonding Agent: An in vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(5):632-636.

PDF Share
  1. Microleakage and resin-to-dentin interface morphology of preetching versus self-etching adhesive systems. Open Dent J 2008;2:120-25.
  2. Microtensile testing, nanoleakage and biodegradation of resin-dentin bonds. J Dent Res 2006 Jan;85(1):11-14.
  3. Restorative dental materials. Elsevier España 2006.
  4. Comparative SEM and TEM examination of the ultrastructure of the resin-dentin interdiffusion zone. J Dent Res 1993 Feb;72(2):495-501.
  5. Characterisation of resin-dentine interfaces by compressive cyclic loading. Biomaterials 2005;26(14):2043-52.
  6. Can modern restorative procedures and materials reliably seal cavities? In vitro investigations. Part 1. American J Dent 2002;15(3):198.
  7. Influence of human and bovine substrate on the microleakage of two adhesive systems. J Applied Oral Sci 2009;17(2):92-96.
  8. In vitro bonding effectiveness of self-etch adhesives with different application techniques: A microleakage and scanning electron microscopic study. J Conservative Dent JCD 2011;14(3):258.
  9. Biodegradation of all-in-one self-etch adhesive systems at the resin-dentin interface. Dent Mater 2011;30(6):814-26.
  10. Bond strength and quality of the hybrid layer of one-step self-etch adhesives applied with agitation on dentin. Oper Dent 2010;35(2):211-19.
  11. Evaluation of microleakage using different bonding agents. Oper Dent 2002;27(6):582-86.
  12. Microleakage in various dentin bonding agent/composite resin systems. Oper Dent 1992;17(5):62-67.
  13. Marginal permeability of selfetch and total-etch adhesive systems. Oper Dent 2006;31(1):60-67.
  14. 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(6):528-33.
  15. Adhesives and cements to promote preservation dentistry. Oper Dent 2001;6:119-44.
  16. Bonding of self-etch and total-etch adhesives to carious dentin. J Dent Res 2002;81(8):556-60.
  17. Enamel and dentin adhesion. In: Fundamentals of operative dentistry: A contemporary approach 2006.
  18. Bond strengths of nonrinsing adhesives. Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany 1985) 2000;31(5):353.
  19. Microleakage of new all-in-one adhesive systems on dentinal and enamel margins. (Berlin, Germany 1985) 2002;33(2):136-39.
  20. In vitro effect of nanoleakage expression on resin-dentin bond strengths analyzed by microtensile bond test, Sem/Edx and Tem. Biomaterials 2004;25(25):5565-74.
  21. Effect of dentin conditioning time on nanoleakage. Oper Dent 2006;31(4):500-511.
  22. Long-term Tem analysis of the nanoleakage patterns in resin-dentin interfaces produced by different bonding strategies. Dent Mater 2007;23(9):1164-72.
  23. Water treeing in simplified dentin adhesives—déjà vu? Oper Dent 2005;30(5):561-79.
  24. Have dentin adhesives become too hydrophilic? Journal (Canadian Dental Association) 2003 Dec;69(11):726-31.
  25. Durability of resin–dentin bonds: Effects of direct/indirect exposure and storage media. Dent Mater 2007;23(7):885-92.
  26. Overhang of Class V composite resin restorations from hygroscopic expansion. Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany 1985) 1989;20(8):551.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.