The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 3 ( March, 2008 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Short-term Evaluation of Resin Sealing and Rebonding on Amalgam Microleakage: An SEM Observation

Horieh Moosavi, Samaneh Sadeghi

Citation Information : Moosavi H, Sadeghi S. Short-term Evaluation of Resin Sealing and Rebonding on Amalgam Microleakage: An SEM Observation. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9 (3):32-39.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-9-3-32

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-03-2008

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2008; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of two different sealing agents on the microleakage of Class V amalgam restorations with and without resin rebonding.

Methods and Materials

Sixty extracted premolars were divided into six groups with ten teeth in each group. Class V cavity preparations were prepared on the facial surfaces of each tooth with the coronal margins placed in enamel and apical margins in cementum (dentin). The preparations in three groups were treated with Copalite, Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (SBMP), and no sealing agent, respectively. The other three groups received the same sealing agents in conjunction with a rebonding process. This arrangement of specimens provided for a comparison of the groups with and without a rebonding procedure. Amalgam was used as the restorative material. Specimens were thermocycled, stained, and sectioned. Microleakage was graded (0-3) using a stereomicroscope at 40x magnification. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used along with a high resolution elemental analysis. Data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Withney, and Wilcoxon pair wise statistical tests (α=.05).

Results

The bonded amalgam groups demonstrated significantly less microleakage, whereas the unsealed groups showed the highest microleakage (P=0.001). A significant difference between the mean rank of the microleakage of enamel and dentin margins was observed (P=0.037). Insignificant, lower microleakage was observed in groups receiving a rebonding procedure (P=0.085).

Conclusion

Copalite and a multi-step adhesive system had a significant effect on microleakage of Class V amalgam restorations. The influence of the multi-step adhesive system was significantly greater than Copalite. The rebonding of the amalgam restorations did not have a significant effect on microleakage.

Citation

Moosavi H, Sadeghi S. Short-term Evaluation of Resin Sealing and Rebonding on Amalgam Microleakage: An SEM Observation. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 March; (9)3:032-039.


PDF Share
  1. Microleakage in bonded amalgam restorations using different adhesive materials. Braz Dent J 2004; 15:13-8.
  2. Bonding of amalgam restorations: existing knowledge and future prospects. Oper Dent 2000; 25:121-9.
  3. Microleakage of amalgam alloys: an update. J Am Dent Assoc 1996;127:1351-6.
  4. Clinical evaluation of amalgam bonding in Class I and II restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2000; 131:43-9.
  5. Amalgam type, adhesive system, and storage period as influencing factors on microleakage of amalgam restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 90:255-60.
  6. F.P. Microleakage of posterior composite restoration after rebonding. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1987; 8:605-9.
  7. Interface gap at amalgam margins. Dent Mater 1988; 4:122-8.
  8. Long-term use of dentin adhesive as an interfacial sealer under Class II amalgam restorations. J Oral Rehabil 1990; 17:37-42.
  9. Detection of microleakage around dental restorations: a review. Oper Dent 1997; 22:173-85.
  10. Microleakage of bonded amalgam restorations: Effect of thermal cycling. Oper Dent 2000; 25:316-23.
  11. Bonded amalgam restorations: microleakage and tensile bond strength evaluation. Oper Dent 2005; 30:228-33.
  12. The sealing of the tooth/amalgam interface by corrosion products. J Oral Rehabil 1995; 22:101-4.
  13. Quantitative microleakage evaluation around amalgam restorations with different treatments on cavity walls. Oper Dent 1999; 24:217-2.
  14. Effect of bonded amalgam restorations on miroleakage. Oper Dent 1999; 24:203-9.
  15. Assessing the long-term effect of a surface penetrating sealant. J Am Dent Assoc 1993; 124:68-72.
  16. Clinical evaluation of preventive and Class-I composite resin restorations. Acta Odontol Scand 1992; 50:359-64.
  17. A clinic evaluation of occlusal composite and amalgam restorations: One- and two- year results. J Am Dent Assoc 1982; 104:335-7.
  18. Adhesive liner incorporation in dental amalgam restorations. Quintessence Int 1997; 28:49-55.
  19. Effect of a resin lining and rebonding on the marginal leakage of amalgam restorations. J Dent 1993; 21:52-6.
  20. Vladimir I. Marginal seal evaluation of adhesive amalgam restorations. J Stomatoloski glasnik srbije 2004; 51:194-202.
  21. Dentine permeability and tracers tests. J Dent 1999,27:1-11.
  22. Clinical research on bonded amalgam restorations. Part 1: SEM study of in vivo bonded amalgam restorations. Gen Dent 1997;45:356-60.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.