Comparative evaluation of microleakage of fifth, sixth, and seventh generation dentin bonding agents: An in vitro study

Vinay, S; Shivanna, Vasundhara

doi:10.4103/0972-0707.71645

Cited by 31 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Geerts et al 8 showed no difference between Single Bond or AdheSE One, and Manuja and Nagpal 13 also found similar performance between OptiBond All-In-One or iBond. In contrast, Vinay and Shivanna 14 found that Clearfil S 3 Bond presented better sealing compared to Single Bond, iBond  , and G-Bond. Deliperi et al 15 found higher microleakage in restorations adhered with iBond compared to those treated with Prime & Bond NT, a two-step etch-and-rinse system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…3 Nevertheless, the incorporation of alcohol as a cosolvent may help to explain its performance. 14 In addition to the compressive/tensile stresses produced during occlusal loading, 10 thermocycling results in contraction/expansion stresses and accelerated chemical degradation. 3 However, the use of an extremely large number of cycles may be unnecessary, because the stress emerges early on the adhesive interface components.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It may result in the reduction and/or loss of water droplets at the interface. 14 Furthermore, the methacryloxy decyl phosphoric acid (MDP) monomer can generate decalcification and bond to ionic calcium and hydroxyapatite. 6 G-Bond decalcifies the dentin surface only slightly and produces almost no exposure of the collagen fibers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Marginal microleakage of class V resin-based composite restorations bonded with six one-step self-etch systems

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the microleakage of class V restorations bonded with various one-step self-etching adhesives. Seventy class V resin-based composite restorations were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 35 premolars, by using: Clearfil S 3 Bond, G-Bond, iBond, One Coat 7.0, OptiBond All-In-One, or Xeno IV. The Adper Single Bond etch-and-rinse two-step adhesive was employed as a control. Specimens were thermocycled for 500 cycles in separate water baths at 5°C and 55°C and loaded under 40 to 70 N for 50,000 cycles. Marginal microleakage was measured based on the penetration of a tracer agent. Although the control showed no microleakage at the enamel margins, there were no differences between groups (p = 0.06). None of the adhesives avoided microleakage at the dentin margins, and they displayed similar performances (p = 0.76). When both margins were compared, iBond  presented higher microleakage (p < 0.05) at the enamel margins (median, 1.00; Q 3 -Q 1 , 1.25-0.00) compared to the dentin margins (median, 0.00; Q 3 -Q 1 , 0.25-0.00). The study adhesives showed similar abilities to seal the margins of class V restorations, except for iBond  , which presented lower performance at the enamel margin.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Marginal microleakage of class V resin-based composite restorations bonded with six one-step self-etch systems

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1,5,6 Microleakage is attributed to various factors including the presence of gaps between the tooth structure and the restorative material, dentinal fluid, polymerization shrinkage, etc. 7,8 Bacteria can proliferate and survive…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Tavangar

Zohri

Sheikhnezhad

et al. 2017

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 at 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.

show abstract

“…6,9 • The CLEARFIL S 3 bond formulation includes a proprietary "Molecular Dispersion Technology," enabling a two-phase liquid, hydrophilic/hydrophobic component homogeneous state at the molecular level, resulting in reduction of water droplets at the adhesive interface and, therefore, a superior bond. 6,7,9 Negligible documentation is available regarding One Coat 7.0 bond, as it has been recently introduced into the market. The success rate for group II is 80% -the reason for this could be due to nanofilled technology.…”

Section: Ijocrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of 2% Chlorhexidine on Appearance of Hybrid Layer with Two different Seventh-generation Bonding Agents

Singh¹,

Madan²,

Agrawal³

et al. 2016

IJOCRWEB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

the ability to bond effectively to two substrates of a different nature.Bonding to enamel is reliable and durable. 2 In contrast, bonding to dentin has been difficult due to its variable nature and heterogeneous structure. Hybridization with resin by monomer interdiffusion has been identified as the basic bonding mechanism resulting in an intimate interlocking of the cured resin with the dentin. Different factors are shown to synergistically affect the integrity of each component of the hybrid layer, thereby contributing to a rapid and catastrophic failure of the resin-dentin bond. The success of adhesion to acid-etched enamel was further propelled by Buonocore et al. 10 They recommended the treatment of the enamel surface with an aqueous acid solution, which resulted in the formation of resin tags by penetration of the resin monomer into the resulting microporosities, and a micromechanical bond was formed after polymerization.The enamel bonding technique has become the standard and is well accepted. However, bonding to dentin has evolved significantly with the development of various bonding systems. During the early 1990s, dentin bonding agents were introduced, which are referred to as fourthgeneration agents. However, their use has been minimal due to the complexity to perform bonding and due to these adhesives being time consuming and consisting of a separate etchant, primer, and bonding resin.2 To overcome these drawbacks, the evolution of new dentin bonding agents, i.e., seventh-generation (all-in-one) bonding agents, has occurred in the recent past. They are less technique sensitive, less time consuming, and effective. 4 The advantages of the self-etching system include complete infiltration of the bonding agent into the demineralized dentin and a reduced number of clinical procedural steps. Evidence-based studies have shown that bacteria left in the tooth remain viable for a long duration.3 Hence, an antibacterial cavity cleanser is recommended to eliminate the potential risks due to bacterial activity. A 2% chlorhexidine has been proven to be an effective agent to disinfect dentin.1 It preserves the dentin bond strength by inhibiting host-derived matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs).3 The use of 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate for 60 seconds was found to inhibit collagenitic activity, thus maintaining the resin-dentin interface. 3 The purpose of this study was to evaluate appearance of the hybrid layer in two different seventh-generation bonding agents on human teeth with and without the application of 2% chlorhexidine. ABSTRACT Aim:To evaluate the appearance of a hybrid layer in two seventh-generation bonding agents on human teeth with and without the application of 2% chlorhexidine. Materials and methods:Class II cavities (MO-OD) were prepared on 12 human maxillary teeth. These teeth were divided into two groups (n = 6) to receive either of the two seventh-generation bonding agents. The bonding agent was applied in the mesioocclusal cavity. On the disto-occlusal cavity, 2% chlorhexidine was applied for 30 se...

show abstract

Comparative evaluation of microleakage of fifth, sixth, and seventh generation dentin bonding agents: An in vitro study

Cited by 31 publications

References 10 publications

Marginal microleakage of class V resin-based composite restorations bonded with six one-step self-etch systems

Marginal microleakage of class V resin-based composite restorations bonded with six one-step self-etch systems

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

Effect of 2% Chlorhexidine on Appearance of Hybrid Layer with Two different Seventh-generation Bonding Agents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About