The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 3 ( May-June, 2013 ) > List of Articles


Microleakage of a Self-Adhesive Class V Composite on Primary and Permanent Dentitions

Leila Shafiei, Parinaz Mojiri, Yalda Ghahraman, Vahid Rakhshan

Citation Information : Shafiei L, Mojiri P, Ghahraman Y, Rakhshan V. Microleakage of a Self-Adhesive Class V Composite on Primary and Permanent Dentitions. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013; 14 (3):461-467.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1345

Published Online: 01-10-2013

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2013; The Author(s).



This study aimed to evaluate the microleakage of Class V restorations filled with a 7th-generation self-adhesive composite.

Materials and methods

In 40 permanent premolars and 80 primary canines, 160 Class V cavities were prepared, which were filled with four restorative materials (n of each material = 20 permanent and 20 primary restorations): control: nonbonded composite (Heliomolar), GI: glass ionomer (Fuji IX GP), BC: bonded Heliomolar, SC: self-adhesive composite (Embrace WetBond). Dye penetration was scored 0 to 4 at 160 coronal and 160 gingival margins under 40× magnification by two examiners. The data were analyzed with Mann-Whitney U test (α = 0.01).


The mean microleakages of the materials (in the order of ‘control, GI, BC, SC’) at each margin-dentition (n = 20 margins) were: coronal-permanent (3.25 ± 0.72, 2.75 ± 0.72, 0.35 ± 0.59, 2.7 ± 0.73), coronal-primary (3.3 ± 0.66, 2.85 ± 0.88, 0.55 ± 0.76, 2.65 ± 1.14), gingival-permanent (3.35 ± 0.67, 0.85 ± 0.67, 2.95 ± 0.83, 1.55 ± 1.23), and gingival-primary (3.25 ± 0.72, 0.85 ± 0.59, 2.85 ± 0.89, 2.85 ± 0.93). Compared with the control microleakage at each margin-dentition (each group's n = 20 margins), BC microleakage was significantly lesser at coronal margins only (p = 0.000), GI microleakage was lower at gingival margins only (p = 0.000), and SC microleakage was smaller at gingival margins of permanent teeth only (p = 0.000). After combining coronal/gingival margins, only SC microleakage in primary dentition (n = 40 margins) was not significantly lesser than the control in primary teeth (p = 0.018); and microleakage of all other material-dentitions were lesser than corresponding control-dentitions (p = 0.000). Permanent and primary teeth had similar results for all material-margins (p > 0.5) except for SC at gingival margins (p = 0.001).


SC should be used only at gingival margins of permanent teeth.

Clinical significance

Application of self-adhesive composite should be limited to gingival margins of permanent teeth.

How to cite this article

Shafiei L, Mojiri P, Ghahraman Y, Rakhshan V. Microleakage of a Self-Adhesive Class V Composite on Primary and Permanent Dentitions. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(3):461-467.

PDF Share
  1. Dentistry for the child and adolescent. Mosby: St. Louis; 2011. 297-299 p.
  2. Microleakage: a measure of the performance of direct filling materials. Oper Dent 1984 Winter;9(1):2-9.
  3. Correlation of in vivo and in vitro performance of adhesive restorative materials: a report of the ASC MD156 Task Group on Test Methods for the Adhesion of Restorative Materials. Dent Mater 1991 Apr;7(2):74-83.
  4. Bacterial microleakage and pulp inflammation associated with various restorative materials. Dent Mater 2002 Sep;18(6):470-478.
  5. Fundamentals of operative dentistry. 3rd ed. United States: Quintessence Books; 2006. 218-314 p.
  6. The frequency of replacement of dental restorations may vary based on a number of variables, including type of material, size of the restoration, and caries risk of the patient. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2010 Mar;10(1):23-24.
  7. Secondary caries and restoration replacement: an unresolved problem. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2000 Jan;21(1):15-18, 21-24, 6 passim; quiz 30.
  8. Microleakage evaluation of core buildup composite resins with total-etch and self-etch adhesive systems. J Contemp Dent Pract 2010 Mar;11(2):009-16.
  9. Bonding of an auto-adhesive luting material to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 2004 Dec;20(10):963-971.
  10. Sturdevant's art and science of operative dentistry. 5th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby;2006. 381-395 p.
  11. Marginal adaptation of three self-adhesive resin cements vs a well-tried adhesive luting agent. Clin Oral Investig 2009 Dec;13(4):459-464.
  12. Marginal adaptation in dentin of a self-adhesive universal resin cement compared with well-tried systems. Dent Mater 2004 Feb;20(2):191-197.
  13. Microleakage study of three adhesive systems. Braz Dent J 2004;15(3):194-198.
  14. Microleakage of adhesive resin systems in the primary and permanent dentitions. Pediatr Dent 2002 Nov-Dec;24(6):587-593.
  15. Marginal adaptation and performance of bioactive dental restorative materials in deciduous and young permanent teeth. J Appl Oral Sci 2008 Jan-Feb;16(1):1-6.
  16. Microleakage of seven adhesive systems in enamel and dentin. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006 Nov;7(5):26-33.
  17. Influence of thermal stress on marginal integrity of restorative materials. J Appl Oral Sci 2008 Mar-Apr;16(2):106-110.
  18. Phosphoric acid incorporated with acidulated phosphate fluoride gel etchant effects on bracket bonding. Angle Orthod 2005 Jul;75(4):678-684.
  19. Evaluation of marginal microleakage and depth of penetration of glass ionomer cements used as occlusal sealants. J Appl Oral Sci 2005;13(3):269-274.
  20. Conventional glass ionomers as posterior restorations. A status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent 1998 Feb;11(1):36-45.
  21. Bonding of contemporary glass ionomer cements to dentin. Dent Mater 2001 Sep;17(5):456-470.
  22. Chemical analysis and bonding reaction of RelyX Unicem and Bifix composites—a comparative study. Dent Mater 2006 Oct;22(10):934-941.
  23. Bond strengths of one-and two-step self-etch adhesive systems. J Prosthet Dent 2007 Apr;97(4):216-222.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.