Premium
Influence of Cavity Configuration on Microleakage around Class V Restorations Bonded with Seven Self‐Etching Adhesives
Author(s) -
SANTINI ARIO,
IVANOVIC VLADIMIR,
IBBETSON RICHARD,
MILIA EGLE
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.919
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1708-8240
pISSN - 1496-4155
DOI - 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2004.tb00020.x
Subject(s) - materials science , adhesive , molar , dentistry , composite material , enamel paint , statistical analysis , mathematics , medicine , layer (electronics) , statistics
Purpose:: The purpose of this study was to evaluate microleakage around Class V resin composite restorations with different cavity configurations, bonded with one of seven self‐etching materials or with an adhesive using the total‐etch technique. Materials and Methods: Ninety‐six human molars and premolars were randomly assigned to eight groups and bonded with one of seven self‐etching adhesives—Prompt‐L‐Pop™ (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), Adper Prompt‐L‐Pop™ (3M ESPE), Clearfil SE Bond® (Kuraray Medical, Okayama, Japan), Prime & Bond® NT/NRC (Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany), Xeno® III (Dentsply DeTrey), One‐Up Bond® (Tokuyama Dental, Tokuyama, Japan), AdheSE® (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein)—or with Prime & Bond® NT (Dentsply DeTrey) using a separate total‐etch technique. Cavities were cut in both the lingual and buccal surfaces and were approximately 3 mm mesiodistally, 1.5 mm deep, and 2.0 mm occlusogingivally. Selected at random, box‐shaped cavities were cut on one side and V‐shaped cavities were cut on the contralateral side. After bonding, the cavities were incrementally filled with a microhybrid composite (Tetric Ceram®, Ivoclar Vivadent), cured, and immediately polished with Sof‐Lex™ (3M ESPE) disks. The teeth were thermocycled, and the specimens were examined for microleakage using Procion Brilliant Red® (ICI, Slough, UK) as a marker. Results: Comparisons of both gingival and enamel margins within each of the groups showed no significant difference owing to configuration factor (C‐factor; p < .5 in all cases, calculated with Kruskal‐Wallis nonparametric analysis of variance [ANOVA]) and Dunn's multiple comparison test). All groups showed microleakage at the gingival margins irrespective of C‐factor or bonding agent (box‐shaped cavities, p < =.8862; V‐shaped cavities, p < =.9623; using the ANOVA). Microleakage was not observed at all enamel margins regardless of C‐factor or bonding agent, and there were no significant differences between the groups (box‐shaped cavities, p < =.9869; V‐shaped cavities, p < =.9550; using the Kruskal‐Wallis nonparametric ANOVA).