Abstract:This study evaluated the ability of different adhesive materials in reducing the microleakage in class V amalgam restorations. Standardized class V cavities were prepared on the facial surface of 56 noncarious human premolars, they were then randomly divided into control and experimental groups based on adhesives used. Group I was the control group with copal varnish, group II had Panavia F 2.0, group III contained Vitrebond Plus and group IV had RelyX ARC as adhesives. Amalgam was hand condensed into each pre… Show more
“…Adhesive systems have been developed (and continue to be developed) in order to eliminate the microleakage that has caused problems for both the traditional amalgam and other restorations (17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23). Adhesives are commonly used in dentistry today.…”
Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of different adhesive systems in amalgam restorations and their effects on microleakage.
Methodology: In this study, 105 caries-free extracted human permanent molar teeth were used. Teeth were randomly assigned to five groups (n=21), and class I cavities were created on the surface of each tooth. The first was a control group to which no adhesive system was applied. Amalgam Liner (VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven Germany) was applied to Group II, Clearfil SE-Bond (Kuraray Europe GmbH, Frankfurt Germany) was applied to Group III, Panavia F 2.0 (Kuraray Europe GmbH, Frankfurt Germany) was applied to Group IV, Amalgambond Plus (Parkell Inc.Edgewood, NY USA) was applied to Group V, and then amalgam (Tytin, Kerr, California USA) restorations were placed. After the polishing process, samples were subjected to thermocycling 1,000 times. Teeth were sectioned bucco-palatinally/lingually, and microleakage scores of the occlusal walls were evaluated under a stereomicroscope at 15X magnification by a standardized scale ranging from 0 to 4. One tooth was selected randomly from each group for SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope), and SEM LEO EVO 40 (LEO Ltd., Cambridge UK) photographs of amalgam-tooth hard tissue interfaces were also taken at different magnifications. The results of the microleakage tests were statistically analyzed by both the Kruskal-Wallis Test and the Mann Whitney U Test.
Results: In terms of microleakage among groups, the differences that were determined were significant (p<0.05). Microleakage within the control group was determined to be the highest, and statistically important differences were observed between the other groups. Group V (Amalgambond Plus) was determined to have the lowest microleakage scores.
Conclusion: In prepared class I cavities, amalgam adhesive systems are effective in preventing occlusal microleakage but do not completely blocked it.
How to cite this article: Ünal M, Atakul F. The evaluation of effectiveness of adhesive systems on dental amalgam restorations. Int Dent Res 2021;11(2):83-92. https://doi.org/10.5577/intdentres.2021.vol11.no2.5
Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.
“…Adhesive systems have been developed (and continue to be developed) in order to eliminate the microleakage that has caused problems for both the traditional amalgam and other restorations (17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23). Adhesives are commonly used in dentistry today.…”
Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of different adhesive systems in amalgam restorations and their effects on microleakage.
Methodology: In this study, 105 caries-free extracted human permanent molar teeth were used. Teeth were randomly assigned to five groups (n=21), and class I cavities were created on the surface of each tooth. The first was a control group to which no adhesive system was applied. Amalgam Liner (VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven Germany) was applied to Group II, Clearfil SE-Bond (Kuraray Europe GmbH, Frankfurt Germany) was applied to Group III, Panavia F 2.0 (Kuraray Europe GmbH, Frankfurt Germany) was applied to Group IV, Amalgambond Plus (Parkell Inc.Edgewood, NY USA) was applied to Group V, and then amalgam (Tytin, Kerr, California USA) restorations were placed. After the polishing process, samples were subjected to thermocycling 1,000 times. Teeth were sectioned bucco-palatinally/lingually, and microleakage scores of the occlusal walls were evaluated under a stereomicroscope at 15X magnification by a standardized scale ranging from 0 to 4. One tooth was selected randomly from each group for SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope), and SEM LEO EVO 40 (LEO Ltd., Cambridge UK) photographs of amalgam-tooth hard tissue interfaces were also taken at different magnifications. The results of the microleakage tests were statistically analyzed by both the Kruskal-Wallis Test and the Mann Whitney U Test.
Results: In terms of microleakage among groups, the differences that were determined were significant (p<0.05). Microleakage within the control group was determined to be the highest, and statistically important differences were observed between the other groups. Group V (Amalgambond Plus) was determined to have the lowest microleakage scores.
Conclusion: In prepared class I cavities, amalgam adhesive systems are effective in preventing occlusal microleakage but do not completely blocked it.
How to cite this article: Ünal M, Atakul F. The evaluation of effectiveness of adhesive systems on dental amalgam restorations. Int Dent Res 2021;11(2):83-92. https://doi.org/10.5577/intdentres.2021.vol11.no2.5
Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.
“…This is in accordance with Ghavamnasiri recent study and different examiners have likewise be demonstrated it to diminish the decrease micro-leakage and post-operative sensitivity. 17 Since cavity varnish is utilized as a part of very thin film, therefore, they are not utilized as coating material. Zinc phosphate can reasoning postoperative sensitivity due to having low pH.…”
Objective: To evaluate the lining material which responsible for reduced post-operative sensitivity between cavity varnish, conventional silver amalgam and bonded amalgam filling class-1 amalgam restoration.
Materials and Methods: Present study was conducted at University of Lahore during the period from February, 2016 to December, 2016. After oral examination, 51 patients were included who have cavity (black class-1) in mandibular molars divided the selected patients into three groups. Amalgam filling got by group-1 with zinc phosphate and amalgam restoration got by group-2 with coating of cavity varnish. Bonded amalgam restoration was given to group-3.
Results: The outcomes dismissed the invalid hypothesis (Ho) which means that similar findings presented by all restorations to reduce the post-operative sensitivity. There is distinction between these restoration methods which was also confirmed by Tukey HSD Test.
Conclusion: In class-1 cavity, the post-operative sensitivity can be reduced by bonded amalgam restoration. The post-operative sensitivity also positively reduced through cavity varnish use
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.