English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage of seven adhesive systems on two substrates (enamel and dentin).Class V cavities were performed in buccal and lingual surfaces of 56 bovine incisors. The cervical margin was located in dentin and the incisal margin in enamel. The specimens were randomly divided into seven groups (n=16), according to the adhesive system employed: Single Bond; Excite; One Step Plus; Gluma One Bond; Magic Bond; One Up Bond F; and One Coat Bond. The cavities were incrementally filled with a hybrid composite Filtek Z250 and polymerized with a XL 3000 light curing unit. After polishing, the specimens were submitted to thermal cycling followed by dye immersion. Leakage was evaluated under magnification (40X) based on a standard ranking. Data were subjected to statistical analysis (Kruskal-Wallis).Enamel margins exhibited lower leakage than dentin margins (p<0.01). The majority of the specimens were leakage-free and materials performed similarly. Conversely, in dentin most of the specimens exhibited the highest leakage degree and significant differences among materials (p<0.05) were found, with Excite exhibiting the lowest leakage degree. It was concluded enamel provided better sealing and the adhesive system was a significant factor only in dentin.

Microleakage of Seven Adhesive Systems in Enamel and Dentin