Experimental comparison of cavity sealing ability of five dental adhesive systems after thermocycling.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cavity sealing obtained after thermocycling with five adhesive systems in which one all-in-one adhesive was compared to three one-bottle adhesives, and to observe the effect of a low-charged resin layer added to a one-bottle adhesive. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five recently extracted teeth were randomly allocated to five experimental adhesive systems (n = 5 each): Optibond Solo (OS), Scotchbond 1 (SB1), PQ 1, Prompt-L-Pop (PLP), SB1+Revolution (R). On each tooth, two rectangular cavities at the cementoenamel junction were filled with a microhybrid composite (Z100) and the tested adhesives. Teeth were thermocycled and stained with AgNO3 + vitamin C. Leakage was evaluated on a 6-point (0-5) severity scale and the highest score was selected for each restoration. Results were treated by ordinal logistic regression and considered to be significant at p < 0.05. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between leakage values for enamel and dentin interfaces. Leakage scores never exceeded 2 for OS, SB1 and SB1+R, while they reached a maximum of 5 in 20% of PLP cases. OS was significantly better than the other adhesive systems, which were statistically equivalent. The addition of a flowable composite layer on SB1 did not yield a significant difference, but tended to give better results mainly at the dentin interface. CONCLUSION: The all-in-one adhesive PLP, because of quite variable results, seems less reliable than the one-bottle adhesives, of which OS provides significantly the best results. Addition of a flowable composite on SB1 appears to yield slightly better results.

An in vitro evaluation of leakage of two etch and rinse and two self-etch adhesives after thermocycling.

Our experiment evaluated the microleakage in resin composite restorations bonded to dental tissues with different adhesive systems. 40 class V cavities were prepared on the facial and lingual surfaces of each tooth with coronal margins in enamel and apical margins in cementum (root dentin). The teeth were restored with Z100 resin composite bonded with different adhesive systems: Scotchbond Multipurpose (SBMP), a 3-step Etch and Rinse adhesive, Adper Scotchbond 1 XT (SB1), a 2-step Etch and Rinse adhesive, AdheSE One (ADSE-1), a 1-step Self-Etch adhesive, and AdheSE (ADSE), a 2-step Self-Etch adhesive. Teeth were thermocycled and immersed in 50% silver nitrate solution. When both interfaces were considered, SBMP has exhibited significantly less microleakage than other adhesive systems (resp., for SB1, ADSE-1 and ADSE, P = 0.0007, P < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001). When enamel and dentin interfaces were evaluated separately, (1) for the Self-Etch adhesives, microleakage was found greater at enamel than at dentin interfaces (for ADSE, P = 0.024 and for ADSE-1, P < 0.0001); (2) for the Etch and Rinse adhesive systems, there was no significant difference between enamel and dentin interfaces; (3) SBMP was found significantly better than other adhesives both at enamel and dentin interfaces. In our experiment Etch and Rinse adhesives remain better than Self-Etch adhesives at enamel interface. In addition, there was no statistical difference between 1-step (ADSE-1) and 2-step (ADSE) Self-Etch adhesives.

Relationship between Operator Skill and In Vitro Microleakage of Different Adhesive Systems in Class V Restorations.

Objectives. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of operator skill on microleakage in class V composite restorations. Materials and Methods. A total of 16 dentists and 25 dental students were enrolled, and 123 extracted teeth were allocated according to the adhesive being tested: Scotchbond Multipurpose, Adper Scotchbond 1 XT, and AdheSE. Each operator was asked to restore one tooth from each experimental group: two class V cavities were cut on each tooth and each adhesive was used on the same tooth before and after instructions for its use. After filling cavities with composite (Z100), the teeth were thermocycled. Results. For all of the tested adhesives, the mean microleakage score was lower for the dentists than for the students. The mean scores for the three tested adhesives were statistically similar before and after instructions for use. Conclusion. Our results indicate that the skill of the operator has a significant influence on microleakage.

Microleakage after Thermocycling of Three Self-Etch Adhesives under Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement Restorations.

This study was designed to evaluate microleakage that appeared on Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement (RMGIC) restorations. Sixty class V cavities (h x w x l = 2 mm x 2 mm x 3 mm) were cut on thirty extracted third molars, which were randomly allocated to three experimental groups. All the buccal cavities were pretreated with polyacrylic acid, whereas the lingual cavities were treated with three one-step Self-Etch adhesives, respectively, Xeno III (Dentsply Detrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany), iBond exp (Heraeus Kulzer gmbH & Co. KG, Hanau, Germany), and Adper Prompt-L-Pop (3M ESPE AG, Dental products Seefeld, Germany). All cavities were completely filled with RMGIC, teeth were thermocycled for 800 cycles, and leakage was evaluated. Results were expressed as means +/- standard deviations (SDs). Microleakage scores were analysed by means of generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) assuming an ordinal logistic link function. All results were considered to be significant at the 5% critical level (P < .05). The results showed that bonding RMGIC to dentin with a Self-Etch adhesive rather than using polyacrylic acid did not influence microleakage scores (P = .091), except for one tested Self-Etch adhesive, namely, Xeno III (P < .0001). Nevertheless, our results did not show any significant difference between the three tested Self-Etch adhesive systems. In conclusion, the pretreatment of dentin with Self-Etch adhesive system, before RMGIC filling, seems to be an alternative to the conventional Dentin Conditioner for the clinicians as suggested by our results (thermocycling) and others (microtensile tests).

[Bonding-cementation of all-ceramic restorations]. / Le collage-scellement des restaurations all-ceram.

The objective of this article is to synthesize the current scientific data relating to the bonding of ceramic restorations in order to present a reliable and reproductive clinical method for the general practitioner. The different ceramic treatments are explained with a distinction between those which can be etched and the others. A precise check list is suggested for the conditioning of dental tissues and ceramic surfaces.