Premium
EFFECT OF ADDITIONAL ENAMEL ETCHING AND A FLOWABLE COMPOSITE TO THE INTERFACIAL INTEGRITY OF CLASS II ADHESIVE COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS
Author(s) -
Belli S.,
Inokoshi S.,
Özer F.,
Pereira P.N.R.,
Ogata M.,
Tagami J.
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.tb00458.x
Subject(s) - enamel paint , materials science , adhesive , composite number , molar , phosphoric acid , etching (microfabrication) , dentin , composite material , gingival margin , dentistry , layer (electronics) , metallurgy , medicine
Objective : The purpose of this study was to evaluate microleakage of Class II composite restorations using a self‐etching adhesive system with additional enamel etching and/or a flowable resin composite material. Materials and Methods : Fifty standardized Class II cavities were prepared in the mesial and distal surfaces of extracted human third molars. All teeth were bonded with a self‐etching primer adhesive system (Clearfil® Liner Bond 2, Kuraray Co. Ltd., Osaka, Japan) according to the manufacturer's instructions and were restored with a resin composite (Clearfil® AP‐X, Kuraray Co. Ltd.). In the control group, only a self‐etching adhesive system was used. In the various experimental groups, the preparation surfaces were coated with a layer of flowable resin composite (Protect® Liner F, Kuraray Co. Ltd.) before the placement of resin composite, etched with 37% phosphoric acid (K‐Etchant®, Kkraray Co. Ltd.) before the application of the adhesive system, or treated with both of these options. In four groups of specimens, the preparation had a gingival margin in enamel. In a fifth group, the gingival margin was in dentin. All teeth were subjected to thermocycling, 300 cycles between 4°C and 60°C, and were sectioned in half through the restorations. Gaps or cracks at the resin‐tooth interfaces were observed directly using a laser scanning microscope and were recorded as percentages of the entire interface length. Results : Separate enamel etching with phosphoric acid did not improve the resin‐enamel seal produced by the self‐etching primer alone. Flowable resin composite produced gap‐free resin‐dentin interfaces but could not prevent cracks and gap formation at the resin‐enamel interface. Conclusions : Neither flowable resin composite nor enamel etching could prevent gap formation at enamel‐resin interfaces and crack formation in enamel walls when used with a self‐etching primer adhesive system. However, the flowable composite provided gap‐free resin‐dentin interfaces.