Effect of Single Step Adhesives on the Marginal Permeability of Class V Resin Composites

Abstract

SUMMARYThis in vitro study evaluated the coronal and apical marginal microleakage of four self-etch, seventh generation adhesive systems.Sixty non-carious human molars were randomly assigned to four groups (n=12). Class V cavities were prepared on the facial or lingual surface of each tooth with coronal margins in enamel and apical margins in cementum (dentin) at the cementoenamel junction. The preparations were restored using four self-etch adhesive systems (iBond, G-Bond, Xeno IV and Clearfil S 3 Bond) and a control (no adhesive), followed by insertion of Gradia Direct microfilled hybrid resin composite. The teeth (specimens) were thermocycled 1,000 cycles, immersed in 1% methylene blue dye for 24 hours and invested in acrylic resin. The specimen blocks were then sectioned longitudinally, with dye penetration (microleakage) examined using a 20x binocular microscope. Coronal and apical margins were scored separately for microleakage using a 0-3 ordinal ranking system. Data were analyzed using non-parametric tests at a p<0.05 level of significance. A comparison of adhesive and control groups at the coronal and apical margins revealed that significant (p<.0001) differences were exhibited. At the coronal margin, Xeno IV revealed significantly less leakage than the other adhesives, with Clearfil S 3 Bond exhibiting significantly less leakage at the apical margin. Groups with no adhesive treatment (control) showed significantly greater leakage at both the coronal and apical margin locations. A Wilcoxon signed rank test showed no significant differences at the coronal compared to the apical margins of the four adhesive systems and control tested.

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

“…16 Yaman et al 17 found lower microleakage for XP Bond (a twostep etch-and-rinse system) compared to One Coat 7.0. Owens and Johnson 18 found lower performance at the enamel margins and higher sealing at the dentin margins using Xeno IV and Clearfil S 3 Bond, respectively, as compared to iBond and G-Bond.…”

“…18 The lower performance of this adhesive at the enamel margin may be explained by the lack of an apparent etching pattern, the minimal exposure of crystallites in irregular areas on the unground enamel, and the islands of superficially dissolved tissue within areas without dissolution displayed on ground enamel after its application. 4 Adhesives containing 4-MET also may show lower enamel-bonding capacities than MDP-containing adhesives.…”

“…3,9,19 Other solvents such as acetone promote higher dehydration and collapse of the collagen network at the dentin margin. 18 Water sorption by the osmotic gradient or phase-separation of system components after acetone evaporation may lead to dentin and enamel blisters. This adhesive also includes a proprietary "Molecular Dispersion Technology," which enables the formation of a two-phase, liquid hydrophilic/hydrophobic component homogenous state at the molecular level.…”

Two-year clinical evaluation of one-step self-etch systems in non-carious cervical lesions

“…Incorporation of HEMA into adhesives is advisable for improving monomer diffusion, decreasing the entrapment of droplets within the adhesive layer and preventing phase separation, 36) but may promote water sorption and hydrolytic degradation. 32,37,38) Possibly because of this, S3 demonstrated significantly or slightly higher bond strengths and less microleakage than GB in many laboratory studies, [5][6][7][8][9][10]20,39) whereas S3 tended to show poorer bonding durability than GB after 1 year water storage.…”

A Comparison of Microleakage Scores of Five Different Types of Composite Resins

“…Following 1000 thermal cycles, Xeno iV produced the least leakage in the coronal group and Clearfil S3 Bond in the apical group (22). in a similar study planned by us, the occlusal and gingival microleakage scores of Clearfil S3 Bond with Clearfil Majesty Esthetic were lowest following 10 000 thermal cycles.…”