In vitro evaluation of marginal microleakage of class II bonded amalgam restorations using a dentin adhesive and a glass ionomer cement

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate in vitro the effectiveness of the dentin bonding system All Bond 2 associated with Resinomer (Bisco), and of Vitrebond (3M) glass ionomer cement fresh-mixed, both used in the bonded amalgam technique, to prevent short-term microleakage in class II cavities restored with Dispersalloy (Dentsply), an admixed alloy. The control group utilized the Copalite (Cooley & Cooley) varnish. Forty five sound human extracted premolars were used. Class II cavity preparations were made on the mesial and distal surfaces of non-carious teeth, with the gingival margins wall established 1mm under the cementum enamel junction. The specimens were divided randomly into three groups with thirty cavities in each group. The teeth were stored in distilled water for 24 hours and were thermocyled through 500 cycles in distilled water between 5°C and 55°C with a dwell time of 15 seconds. The apices and roots of the teeth were sealed. They were placed in a 37°C bath of 0.5% basic fuchsin dye for 24 hours. The teeth were washed in tap water for 24 hours and cut. The microleakage scores per restoration were averaged and three values of various test groups were subjected to the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn test at a significance level of p < 0.05. The All Bond 2/Resinomer showed significantly less microleakage at gingival margins than the Vitrebond and Copalite lined to amalgam restorations. The Vitrebond fresh mixed, lined to amalgam restorations, showed significantly less microleakage than the Copalite lined to amalgam restorations.

In vitro evaluation of the marginal microleakage of amalgam restorations associated with dentin adhesive, glass ionomer cement and cavity varnish by means of different evaluation methods

“…Since it has approximately 25% of inorganic fillers, there may be some improvement in its resistance to the masticatory efforts when clinically applied, because it would act as an elastic coat able to absorb the functional stresses concentrated at the adhesive interface, preserving the union between the dental structure and the restorative material 7 . The GIII-VT presented the best performance in this study 21,23 or adhesive system 23 . Despite of the positive results achieved by the RMGIC, it was not statistically superior to GII-OS in all evaluation methods, except for the SUL method, as presented in Table 1.…”

“…Besides this study, others have employed the same RMGIC to accomplish amalgam restorations 18,23 , yet following the manufacturer's instructions, with a 1:1 ratio. The amalgam condensation over the RMGIC while on the plastic phase allowed the achievement of a thin layer of RMGIC between the tooth and the restoration, and this technique has also been applied in other studies for evaluation of the marginal microleakage 21,23,29 . The best outcomes observed for the GIII-VT may be the result of some characteristics of the GIC, such as the chemical bonding to the dental structure 1,16 and hydrophilia, which allow bonding between the GIC and the tooth even in the presence of dentin moisture 25 .…”

“…The first method is the most widely employed, however the quantitative methods provide the extension of dye penetration more accurately 19 . This evaluation may be done through microscopy 19,21 or by means of digitized images 29 with utilization of softwares. However, these usually present shadows and image distortions.…”

“…Another material that has been used in combination with amalgam is the glass ionomer cement (GIC) 2,19,21,23 , which plays an important role in the prevention of secondary caries, especially because of the release of fluoride ions. Concerning the resin modified glass ionomer cements (RMGIC) like the VITREMER, there are the further advantages of the control of the working time by means of the incorporation of a lightcured resin component 1,8,16,18 , lower sensitivity to dehydration and moisture 8,18 , lower solubility and higher bond strength to the dental structure 16 .…”

Universal Adhesive Systems in Class II Amalgam Restorations

“…However, marginal infiltration it was lower and statistically significant for restorations associated with dentin adhesives, when compared with cavity varnish. Junior et al [27] also obtained less marginal infiltration when using the adhesive system All Bond 2/Resinomer than when using a glass ionomer cement (Vitrebond), the latter of which was better than the control group (Copaline Varnish). On the other hand, Guiraldo et al [4] assessed the marginal adaptation of cavities restored with silver amalgam and adhesive systems and concluded that the worst marginal adaptation was found in the control group (restoration without sealers), with a statistically significant difference when compared with the other groups (G I: adhesive Prime & Bond 2.1 -Dentsply; G II: acid conditioning, application of the adhesive Single Bond and the resin cement Rely X -3M-ESPE; G III: glass ionomer cement Rely X Luting -3M-ESPE).…”