The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 9 ( September, 2021 ) > List of Articles


A Comparative Study of Cervical Composite Restorations Microleakage Using Dental Universal Bonding and Two-step Self-etch Adhesive

Kamyar Fathpour, Amirhosein Bazazzade, Hesam Mirmohammadi

Keywords : Microleakage, Selective enamel etch, Self-etch bonding, Universal bonding

Citation Information : Fathpour K, Bazazzade A, Mirmohammadi H. A Comparative Study of Cervical Composite Restorations Microleakage Using Dental Universal Bonding and Two-step Self-etch Adhesive. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (9):1035-1040.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3171

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 06-01-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim: The aim of this study is to compare microleakage of cervical restorations using universal bonding and two-step self-etch adhesive with or without enamel etching through a dye penetration testing method. Materials and methods: In this in vitro experimental study, 70 maxillary premolar teeth with no anomaly or decay were randomly divided into five groups of 14. Conventional cervical cavities were prepared with diamond bur on the facial surface of the teeth. The teeth were prepared using G-Premio Bond/self-etch technique, G-Premio Bond/total-etch technique, G-Premio Bond/selective-etch technique, Clearfil SE Bond/self-etch technique, and Clearfil SE Bond/selective-etch technique in Groups I to V, respectively, and restored with composite. Microleakage at the occlusal enamel margin and the cervical dentinal margin was ranked from 0 to 4 based on dye penetration using stereomicroscope (×32). Statistical analysis was carried out using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests at a significance level of α = 0.05. Results: The mean occlusal microleakage in the five study groups was 1.07, 0.57, 0.57, 1.28, and 0.78, respectively. The mean cervical microleakage was 0.97, 0.85, 0.64, 1.35, and 1.14, respectively. Kruskal-Wallis test showed significant difference between the microleakage scores of different groups in enamel (p = 0.022) and dentin (p = 0.01). Clearfil SE Bond/self-etch technique group showed the highest mean score of microleakage in enamel margins, and G-Premio Bond/total-etch technique and G-Premio Bond/selective-etch technique groups showed lowest enamel microleakage mean. Clearfil SE Bond/self-etch group showed the highest mean score of microleakage in dentin margins, while G-Premio Bond/selective-etch technique group showed the lowest mean score of dentin microleakage. Conclusion: Selective etching of enamel will decrease enamel microleakage. G-Premio Bond shows better microleakage results in comparison to Clearfil SE Bond in dentinal margins. Clinical significance: A major problem in cervical composite restorations is the presence of microleakage in the cervical wall. Different adhesive systems have been designed to overcome this problem.

  1. Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134(10):1382–1390. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0054.
  2. Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 2012;28(1):87–101. DOI: 10.1016/
  3. Korkmaz Y, Ozel E, Attar N, et al. Microleakage and scanning electron microscopy evaluation of all-in-one self-etch adhesives and their respective nanocomposites prepared by erbium: yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser and bur. Lasers Med Sci 2010;25(4):493–502. DOI: 10.1007/s10103-009-0672-5.
  4. Opdam N, Loomans B, Roeters F, et al. Five-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations placed by dental students. J Dent 2004;32(5):379–383. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2004.02.005.
  5. Krmek SJ, Bogdan I, Simeon P, et al. A three-dimensional evaluation of microleakage of class V cavities prepared by the very short pulse mode of the erbium: yttrium–aluminium–garnet laser. Lasers Med Sci 2010;25(6):823–828. DOI: 10.1007/s10103-009-0707-y.
  6. Waldman G, Vaidyanathan T, Vaidyanathan J. Microleakage and resin-to-dentin interface morphology of pre-etching versus self-etching adhesive systems. Open Dent J 2008;2(1):120–125. DOI: 10.2174/1874210600802010120.
  7. Baygin O, Korkmaz FM, Arslan I. Effects of different types of adhesive systems on the microleakage of compomer restorations in Class V cavities prepared by Er, Cr: YSGG laser in primary teeth. Dent Mater J 2012;31(2):206–214. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2011-133.
  8. Ritter AV, Swift EJ, Heymann HO, et al. An eight-year clinical evaluation of filled and unfilled one-bottle dental adhesives. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140(1):28–37. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0015.
  9. Manhart J, Neuerer P, Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, et al. Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84(3):289–296. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2000.108774.
  10. Zhao X, Li S, Gu L, et al. Detection of marginal leakage of class v restorations in vitro by micro–computed tomography. Oper Dent 2014;39(2):174–180. DOI: 10.2341/12-182-L.
  11. Geerts S, Bolette A, Seidel L, et al. An in vitro evaluation of leakage of two etch and rinse and two self-etch adhesives after thermocycling. Int J Dent 2012;2012:852841. DOI: 10.1155/2012/852841.
  12. Ferrari M, Goracci G, García-Godoy F. Bonding mechanism of three “one-bottle” systems to conditioned and unconditioned enamel and dentin. Am J Dent 1997;10(5):224–230. PMID: 9522696.
  13. Van Meerbeek B, Perdigao J, Lambrechts P, et al. The clinical performance of adhesives. J Dent 1998;26(1):1–20. DOI: 10.1016/s0300- 5712(96)00070-x.
  14. De Munck Jd, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 2005;84(2):118–132. DOI: 10.1177/154405910508 400204.
  15. Santini A, Ivanovic V, Ibbetson R, et al. Influence of marginal bevels on microleakage around Class V cavities bonded with seven self-etching agents. Am J Dent 2004;17(4):257–261. PMID: 15478487.
  16. Abo T, Uno S, Sano H. Comparison of bonding efficacy of an all-in-one adhesive with a self-etching primer system. Eur J Oral Sci 2004;112(3):286–292. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2004.00126.x.
  17. Kubo S, Yokota H, Hayashi Y. Microleakage of cervical cavities restored with flowable composites. Am J Dent 2004;17(1):33–37. PMID: 15241907.
  18. Santini A, Ivanovic V, Ibbetson R, et al. Influence of cavity configuration on microleakage around Class V restorations bonded with seven self-etching adhesives. J Esthet Restor Dent 2004;16(2):128–135. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2004.tb00020.x.
  19. Sano H, Yoshikawa T, Pereira P, et al. Long-term durability of dentin bonds made with a self-etching primer, in vivo. J Dent Res 1999;78(4):906–911. DOI: 10.1177/00220345990780041101.
  20. Hayakawa T, Kikutake K, Nemoto K. Influence of self-etching primer treatment on the adhesion of resin composite to polished dentin and enamel. Dent Mater 1998;14(2):99–105. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(98)00015-3.
  21. Perdigao J, Swift E, Walter R. Fundamental concepts of enamel and dentin adhesion. In: Sturdevant's art and science of operative dentistry. 2014. p. 114–140. DOI:10.1016/B978-0-323-47833. 00005-8.
  22. Schroeder M, Correa IC, Bauer J, et al. Influence of adhesive strategy on clinical parameters in cervical restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2017;62:36–53. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017. 05.006.
  23. Khosravi K, Ataei E, Mousavi M, et al. Effect of phosphoric acid etching of enamel margins on the microleakage of a simplified all-in-one and a self-etch adhesive system. Oper Dent 2009;34(5):531–536. DOI: 10.2341/08-026-L.
  24. Kermanshah H, Khorsandian H. Comparison of microleakage of Scotchbond™ Universal Adhesive with methacrylate resin in Class V restorations by two methods: Swept source optical coherence tomography and dye penetration. Dent Res J 2017;14(4):272. DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.211651.
  25. Gupta A, Tavane P, Gupta PK, et al. Evaluation of microleakage with total etch, self etch and universal adhesive systems in Class V restorations: an in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2017;11(4):ZC53. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/24907.9680.
  26. Khoroushi M, Shirban F, Shirban M. Marginal microleakage and morphological characteristics of a solvent-free one-step self-etch adhesive (B1SF). J Dent (Tehran) 2013;10(1):32–40. PMID: 23724201.
  27. Tay FR, Carvalho R, Sano H, et al. Effect of smear layers on the bonding of a self-etching primer to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2000;2(2):99–116. PMID: 11317405.
  28. Pereira P, Okuda M, Sano H, et al. Effect of intrinsic wetness and regional difference on dentin bond strength. Dent Mater 1999;15(1):46–53. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(99)00013-5.
  29. Carvalho RM, Tjäderhane L, Manso AP, et al. Dentin as a bonding substrate. Endod Topics 2009;21(1):62–88. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-1546.2012.00274.x.
  30. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, et al. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003;28(3):215–235. PMID: 12760693.
  31. Yoshida Y, Nagakane K, Fukuda R, et al. Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers. J Dent Res 2004;83(6):454–458. DOI: 10.1177/154405910408300604.
  32. Hannig M, Reinhardt K, Bott B. Self-etching primer vs phosphoric acid: an alternative concept for composite-to-enamel bonding. Oper Dent 1999;24(3):172–180. PMID: 10530279.
  33. Osorio R, Toledano M, De Leonardi G, et al. Microleakage and interfacial morphology of self etching adhesives in class V resin composite restorations. J Biomed Materials Res Part B App Biomater 2003;66(1):399–409. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.10024.
  34. Cardoso P, Placido E, Francci C, et al. Microleakage of Class V resin-based composite restorations using five simplified adhesive systems. Am J Dent 1999;12(6):291–294. PMID: 10850249.
  35. Opdam N, Roeters F, Feilzer A, et al. Marginal integrity and postoperative sensitivity in Class 2 resin composite restorations in vivo. J Dent 1998;26(7):555–562. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(97) 00042-0.
  36. Takamizawa T, Barkmeier W, Tsujimoto A, et al. Effect of phosphoric acid pre-etching on fatigue limits of self-etching adhesives. Oper Dent 2015;40(4):379–395. DOI: 10.2341/13-252-L.
  37. Choi A-N, Lee J-H, Son S, et al. Effect of dentin wetness on the bond strength of universal adhesives. Materials (Basel) 2017;10(11):1224. DOI: 10.3390/ma10111224.
  38. Imai A, Takamizawa T, Sai K, et al. Influence of application method on surface free-energy and bond strength of universal adhesive systems to enamel. Eur J Oral Sci 2017;125(5):385–395. DOI: 10.1111/eos. 12361.
  39. Szesz A, Parreiras S, Reis A, et al. Selective enamel etching in cervical lesions for self-etch adhesives: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2016;53:1–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.05.009.
  40. Kearns JO, Barry JG, Fleming GJ. Cuspal deflection and cervical micro-leakage scores to determine the adhesive potential of universal bonding systems. J Dent 2014;42(8):970–976. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent. 2014.05.013.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.