The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 18 , ISSUE 10 ( October, 2017 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparison of Microleakage of Class V Cavities restored with the Embrace WetBond Class V Composite Resin and Conventional Opallis Composite Resin

Maryam Tavangar, Zahra Zohri, Hosein Sheikhnezhad, Shahrzad Shahbeig

Citation Information : Tavangar M, Zohri Z, Sheikhnezhad H, Shahbeig S. Comparison of Microleakage of Class V Cavities restored with the Embrace WetBond Class V Composite Resin and Conventional Opallis Composite Resin. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017; 18 (10):867-873.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2141

Published Online: 01-06-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; The Author(s).


Abstract

Purpose

This study was undertaken to compare the microleakage of class V cavities restored with the newly introduced Embrace WetBond class V (EWC) composite resin and conventional Opallis composite resin.

Materials and methods

In this in vitro study, class V cavities were prepared on 30 extracted bovine incisors, with the gingival floor and the coronal margin of the cavities 1 mm apical and coronal to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) respectively. The cavities measured 3 mm in length, 2 mm in width, and 1.5 mm in depth. The teeth were randomly divided into two groups. In group I, the cavities were restored with Opallis composite resin in association with ExciTE adhesive system (total-etch); in group II, the EWC composite resin was used for restorations. After 500 thermocycling procedures, the teeth were immersed in 0.5% fuchsin solution for 24 hours. Then, the samples were placed within a polyester model and sectioned in the buccolingual direction. The samples were evaluated under a stereomicroscope at ×30 for the penetration of dye. The enamel and dentin margins were evaluated separately. To test ordinal results, we used nonparametric statistical methods. To find out whether each independent composite groups I and II came from the same populations, we used Mann–Whitney U test and to compare two related samples’ coronal margin and gingival margin, Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.

Results

There was significantly more microleakage in group II at both the enamel and dentin margins (coronal margin: p = 0.04; gingival margin: p = 0.21). In both groups, microleakage gingival margins was significantly higher than that at coronal margins (group I: p = 0.008; group II: p = 0.26).

Conclusion

Despite the high speed and the short process of restoration with Embrace WetBond, it is not a reliable restorative material for class V cavities due to its inadequate marginal seal.

How to cite this article

Tavangar M, Zohri Z, Sheikhnezhad H, Shahbeig S. Comparison of Microleakage of Class V Cavities restored with the Embrace WetBond Class V Composite Resin and Conventional Opallis Composite Resin. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(10):867-873.

PDF Share
  1. Sturdevant's art and science of operative dentistry. J Conserv Dent 2013 Sep;16(5):480.
  2. Effect of stepped exposure on quantitative in vitro marginal microleakage. J Esthet Restor Dent 2005 Jul;17(4):236-242, discussion 243.
  3. Evaluation of a self-adhering flowable composite in terms of micro-shear bond strength and microleakage. Acta Odontol Scand 2013 May-Jul;71(3-4):541-546.
  4. A comparative evaluation of microleakage of two low-shrinkage composites with a conventional resin composite: an in vitro assessment. J Dent (Shiraz) 2016 Mar;17(1):55-61.
  5. In vitro comparison of microleakage of posterior resin composites with and without liner using two-step etch-and-rinse and self-etch dentin adhesive systems. Oper Dent 2011 Mar-Apr;36(2):213-221.
  6. Microleakage of a self-adhesive class V composite on primary and permanent dentitions. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013 May;14(3):461-467.
  7. An in vitro evaluation of leakage of two etch and rinse and two self-etch adhesives after thermocycling. Int J Dent 2012 Mar;2012:852841.
  8. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of fifth, sixth, and seventh generation dentin bonding agents: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2010 Oct;13(3):136-140.
  9. An in vitro microleakage study of class V cavities restored with a new self-adhesive flowable composite resin versus different flowable materials. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2012 Jul-Aug;9(4):460-465.
  10. Marginal microleakage of class V resin-based composite restorations bonded with six one-step self-etch systems. Braz Oral Res 2013 May-Jun;27(3):225-230.
  11. Advanced resin technology: embrace Wetbond. Spectrum 2005;4(1):68-76.
  12. Comparative evaluation of traditional and self-priming hydrophilic resin. J Conserv Dent 2012 Jul-Sep;15(3):233-236.
  13. Gingival microleakage of class II resin composite restorations with fiber inserts. Oper Dent 2007 Jun;32(3):298-305.
  14. Microleakage of seven adhesive systems in enamel and dentin. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006 Nov;7(5):26-33.
  15. Influence of two self-etching primer systems on enamel adhesion. Braz Dent J 2007;18(2):113-118.
  16. Marginal integrity of different resin-based composites for posterior teeth: an in vitro dye-penetration study on eight resin-composite and compomer/adhesive combinations with a particular look at the additional use of flow-composites. Dent Mater 2002 Jun;18(4):351-358.
  17. Microleakage after thermocycling of 4 etch and rinse and 3 self-etch adhesives with and without a flowable composite lining. Oper Dent 2006 Jul-Aug;31(4):450-455.
  18. Class II composite resin restorations with two polymerization techniques: Relationship between microtensile bond strength and marginal leakage. J Dent 2005 Aug;33(7):603-610.
  19. Microleakage of porcelain veneer restorations bonded to enamel and dentin with a new self-adhesive resin-based dental cement. Dent Mater 2007 Feb;23(2):218-225.
  20. Fatigue resistance and structural characteristics of fiber posts: three-point bending test and SEM evaluation. Dent Mater 2005 Feb;21(2):75-82.
  21. Bonding effectiveness and sealing ability of fiber-post bonding. Dent Mater 2008 Jul;24(7):967-977.
  22. Bonding of an auto-adhesive luting material to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 2004 Dec;20(10):963-971.
  23. Self-adhesive resin cements: a literature review. J Adhes Dent 2008 Aug;10(4):251-258.
  24. Marginal integrity of partial ceramic crowns within dentin with different luting techniques and materials. Oper Dent 2008 Sep-Oct;33(5):516-525.
  25. Marginal adaptation of all-ceramic crowns using different luting-cements. J Dent Res 2002;81:A421-A421.
  26. Marginal adaptation of ceramic in lays using different types of cements. J Dent Res 2002;81:A36.
  27. Effect of insertion technique and adhesive system on microleakage of class V resin composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 2005 Winter;7(4):303-308.
  28. Factors affecting microleakage of a packable resin composite: an in vitro study. Oper Dent 2005 May-Jun;30(3):338-345.
  29. Influence of adhesive system and placement technique on microleakage of resin-based composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 2004 Autumn;6(3):227-232.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.