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

Abstract

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.

The Effect of Two Different Adhesive Systems on Microleakage of Class v Composite Restoration in Primary Teeth

“…When comparing group I and II (both gingivaly and occulsally), the results showed no significant differences between groups. This finding is in agreement with the study of Sánchez et al (23). Moreover, El Sayed et al (24) concluded that although all adhesive systems exhibited dye penetration at both occlusal and gingival margins, etch and rinse systems are still considered a gold standard for adhesion.…”

Pérdidas porcentuales de calcio y fósforo en esmalte y dentina por la acción desmineralizante de adhesivos autoacondicionadores.

“…Contrariamente, se reportan que los sistemas adhesivos autoacondicionadores, independientemente de la orientación de los túbulo, de la profundidad cavitaria y de la ubicación dentinaria (central y periférica), logran en dentina, imprimar las fibras colágenas significativamente mejor en comparación con los adhesivos de grabado independiente 18,19 . Así mismo, coincidentemente en otras publicaciones, no encontraron diferencias significativas en el comportamiento en los adhesivos autoacondicionadores aplicados tanto en esmalte como en dentina sobre todo con los adhesivos que se aplican en dos pasos mediante ensayos de resistencia adhesiva al corte 20,21 . Sin embargo el rendimiento de los adhesivos autoacondicionadores de ultimas generaciones ven comprometidas las uniones adhesivas por la presencia de barro dentinario y por el tiempo de aplicación 22 .…”

Microtensile Bond Strength of One vs Two Layer Applications of Three Disposable Seventh Generation Adhesives

“…When adhesive first applied the solvents of the adhesives evaporates and the concentration of the monomers increased for each layer and thereby the quality of hybrid layer improves. Acetone is a solvent and presented with ethanol in optibond [14,20,21]. Two of them may balance the solvent evaporation without dehydrating dentin, because acetone volatilizes rapidly and dehydrates the dentin and ethanol ensures the wetness of the substrate.…”