Premium
Dentine bond strength and microleakage of flowable composite, compomer and glass ionomer cement
Author(s) -
Xie H,
Zhang F,
Wu Y,
Chen C,
Liu W
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
australian dental journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.701
H-Index - 71
eISSN - 1834-7819
pISSN - 0045-0421
DOI - 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00074.x
Subject(s) - bond strength , glass ionomer cement , materials science , adhesive , enamel paint , dentistry , cement , composite number , composite material , scanning electron microscope , dental cement , medicine , layer (electronics)
Abstract Background: To assess in vitro the dentine bond strength and microleakage of three Class V restorations viz. flowable composite, compomer and glass ionomer cement. Methods: Eighteen dentine specimens were prepared and randomly distributed among three groups. Three kinds of restoration materials were each bonded on prepared dentine surfaces in three groups as per the manufacturers’ instructions. Group Aelite: Tyrian SPE (a no‐rinse, self‐priming etchant) + One Step Plus (an universal dental adhesive) + Aeliteflo (a flowable composite); Group Dyract: Prime & Bond NT (a no‐rinse, self‐priming dental adhesive) + Dyract AP (a compomer); Group GlasIonomer: GlasIonomer Type II (a self‐cured restorative glass ionomer). Fifteen dentine/restoration microtensile bond test specimens were prepared from each group and were subjected to microtensile bond strength testing. The bond interfaces were observed morphologically using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Twenty‐four cervical cavities of 4.0 mm mesiodistal length, 2.0 mm occlusogingival height and 1.5 mm depth were prepared at the cemento‐enamel junction (CEJ) on both buccal and lingual surfaces of each tooth. The cavities were each filled with flowable composite (Group Aelite), compomer (Group Dyract) and glass ionomer cement (Group GlasIonomer) using the same material and methods as for the microtensile bond tests. Microleakage of each restoration was evaluated by the ratio of the length of methylene blue penetration along the tooth‐restoration interface and the total length of the dentine cavity wall on the cut surface. Results: One‐way ANOVA and least significant difference (LSD) tests revealed statistically significant differences among the dentine bond strength for Group Aelite (28.4 MPa), Group Dyract (15.1 MPa) and Group GlasIonomer (2.5 MPa). SEM images showed intimate adaptation in the restoration/dentine interfaces of Group Aelite and Group Dyract. All of the systems tested in this study presented microleakage. However, both Group Aelite (0.808) and Group Dyract (0.863) had significantly less microleakage than Group GlasIonomer (0.964). There were no statistically significant microleakage differences between Group Aelite and Group Dyract, and no statistically significant microleakage differences between the occlusal margin and gingival margin. Conclusions: None of the systems tested in this study completely eliminated microleakage. However, both the flowable composite and compomer provided stronger dentine bond strengths and better margin sealing than the conventional glass ionomer cement. Occlusal forces exerted the same effects on microleakage of the occlusal margin and gingival margin in cervical cavities.