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 21 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2020 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Microleakage of a Self-adhesive Composite of Class V Cavities: Effect of Surface Treatment and Thermocycling

Sara Valizadeh, S Fatemeh Hashemi, Sedighe S Hashemikamangar, Mohammad J Kharazifard

Citation Information : Valizadeh S, Hashemi SF, Hashemikamangar SS, Kharazifard MJ. Microleakage of a Self-adhesive Composite of Class V Cavities: Effect of Surface Treatment and Thermocycling. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (7):781-786.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2878

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-10-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to assess the microleakage of a self-adhesive composite compared to conventional composites in class V cavities. Materials and methods: In this in vitro experimental study, standard class V cavities were prepared in the buccal surface of 204 extracted teeth and randomly divided into six groups for restoration with (A) Vertiseflow (Kerr) self-adhesive composite, (B) acid etching (Kerr) + Vertiseflow, (C) acid etching + Optibond FL (Kerr) + Vertiseflow, (D) Er,Cr:YSGG laser + Vertiseflow, (E) acid etching + Optibond FL + Premise Flowable (Kerr), and (F) acid etching + Optibond FL + Z250 (3M). The teeth in each group were then randomly divided into two subgroups of with and without thermocycling (10,000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C). The microleakage was then determined at the enamel and dentin margins under a stereomicroscope using the dye penetration method. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test (α = 0.05). Results: No significant difference was noted in occlusal margin microleakage of no thermocycling groups, but acid etching + Vertiseflow showed the highest microleakage. At the gingival margin, the difference between acid etching + bonding agent + Z250 and laser + Vertiseflow was significant (p = 0.004). In thermocycling groups, the difference in the microleakage at the occlusal margin of Vertiseflow with that of acid etching + bonding agent + Premise (p = 0.002), acid etching + bonding agent + Vertiseflow (p = 0.009), and acid etching + bonding agent + Z250 (p = 0.037) groups was significant. The difference in the microleakage at the dentin margin was also significant among the groups (p < 0.05). The highest and the lowest microleakages were noted in laser + Vertiseflow and acid etching + bonding agent + Vertiseflow groups, respectively. Conclusion: Surface preparation with etching and adhesive application results in lower microleakage in class V cavities. But laser irradiation and the use of self-adhesive composite increase the microleakage. Clinical significance: It seems that self-adhesive composites cannot provide acceptable marginal integrity without any surface treatment.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003;28(3):215–235.
  2. Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, et al. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater 2005;21(9):864–881.
  3. Shafiei L, Mojiri P, Ghahraman Y, et al. Microleakage of a self-adhesive class V composite on primary and permanent dentitions. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(3):461–467.
  4. Asefzadeh F, Jamshidian M, Molaei N. Microleakage of wetbond self adhesive composite in class V cavities. J Mash Dent Sch 2010;34(2): 99–108.
  5. Yuan H, Li M, Guo B, et al. Evaluation of microtensile bond strength and microleakage of a self-adhering flowable composite. J Adhes Dent 2015;17(6):535–543.
  6. Moosavi H, Moazzami SM, Loh S, et al. Microleakage evaluation of core buildup composite resins with total-etch and self-etch adhesive systems. J Contemp Dent Pract 2010;11(2):009–016.
  7. De Munck J, Vargas M, Van Landuyt K, et al. Bonding of an auto-adhesive luting material to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 2004;20(10):963–971.
  8. Arami S, Tabatabaei MH, Namdar F, et al. Shear bond strength of the repair composite resin to zirconia ceramic by different surface treatments. J Lasers Med Sci 2014;5(4):171–175.
  9. Hashemikamangar SS, Hasanitabatabaee M, Kalantari S, et al. Bond strength of fiber posts to composite core: effect of surface treatment with Er,Cr:YSGG laser and thermocycling. J Lasers Med Sci 2018;9(1):36–42.
  10. Baur V, Ilie N. Repair of dental resin-based composites. Clin Oral Invest 2013;17:601–608.
  11. International Standards Organization. ISO Standard 11405:2003: dental materials-testing of adhesion to tooth structure. Geneva: The Organization; 2003.
  12. Sadeghi M. An in vitro microleakage study of class V cavities restored with a new self-adhesive flowable composite resin vs different flowable materials. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2102;9(4):461–465.
  13. Celik EU, Kucukyilmaz E, Savas S. Effect of different surface pre-treatment methods on the microleakage of two different self-adhesive composites in class V cavities. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2015;16(1):33–33.
  14. Sharafeddin F, Koohpeima F, Palizian B. Evaluation of microleakage in class V cavities filled with methacrylate-based vs silorane-based composites. J Dent Biomater 2015;2(2):67–72.
  15. Idriss S, Abduljabbar T, Habib C, et al. Factors associated with microleakage in class II resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2007;32(1):60–66.
  16. Ben Amar A, Slutzky H, Matalon S. The influence of 2 condensation techniques on the marginal seal of packable resin composite restorations. Quintessence Int 2007;38(5):423–428.
  17. Sooraparaju SG, Kanumuru PK, Nujella SK, et al. A comparative evaluation of microleakage in class v composite restorations. Int J Dent 2014;2014:685643.
  18. Tabatabaei MH, Arami S, Khajavi F, et al. Effect of type of cavity preparation (bur,er:YAG laser) and restorative materials on prevention of caries lesion. J Dent Med 2017;29(4):229–236. [Persian].
  19. Davari A, Kazemi AD, Mousavinasab M, et al. In vitro microleakage evaluation of total-etch and self-etch bonding systems. Shiraz Univ Dent J 2010;11(1):28–34.
  20. Gönülol N, Ertaş E, Yılmaz A, et al. Effect of thermal aging on microleakage of current flowable composite resins. J Dent Sci 2015;10(4):376–382.
  21. Moslemi M, Fotouhi Ardakani F, Javadi F, et al. Evaluation of Er,Cr:YSGG laser effect on Microshear bond strength of a self-adhesive flowable composite in the dentin of permanent molar: an in vitro study. Scientifica (Cairo) 2016;2016:4856285.
  22. De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B, Yudhira R, et al. Micro-tensile bond strength of two adhesives to erbium:YAG-lased vs. Bur-cut enamel and dentin. Eur J Oral Sci 2002;110(4):322–329.
  23. Synarellis A, Kouros P, Koulaouzidou E, et al. In vitro microleakage of class V composite restorations prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser and carbide BUR balkan. J Dent Med 2017;21:24–31. DOI: 10.1515/bjdm-2017-0004, Retrieved 10 Apr. 2018, from.
  24. Tuna EB, Ozel E, Kasimoglu Y, et al. Investigation of the ER:YAG laser and diamond bur cavity preparation on the marginal microleakage of class V cavities restored with different flowable composites. Microsc Res Tech 2017;80(5):530–536.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.