Sealing ability of different adhesive restorative materials
Habilidade de selamento de differentes materiais restauradores adesivos
LUND, Rafael Guerra Lund; CARVALHO, Rodrigo Varella de Carvalho; RODRIGUES-JUNIOR, Sinval Adalberto Rodrigues Junior; Demarco, F.F.
Rev. odontol. UNESP, vol.38, n4, p.204-210, 2009
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sealing ability of different
adhesive restorative materials to bovine enamel and dentin. Ninety standard sauceshaped Class V cavities with 3 mm of diameter x 2 mm of depth were prepared in the uccal and lingual faces of 45 bovine incisors. The gingival margin was located in
dentin and the incisal margin in enamel. Teeth were randomly divided in 9 groups
(n=10) and restored with the following materials: five flowable composites, one
microfilled composite, one microhybrid composite, one compomer; and one resinmodified lass ionomer cement (RMGIC). The restorations were made based on the manufacturer’s instructions for adhesive treatment and restorative procedure. After
polishing, the teeth were thermocycled and immersed in 2% basic fuchsin for 24h.
Teeth were, then, serially sectioned generating 3 slices of 1 mm that were observed in a stereomicroscope under x40 magnification. The degree of dye leakage was recorded as follows: 0 – no leakage; 1 – leakage up to half the cavity; 2 – leakage in more than half of the cavity; 3 – Extensive dye leakage, reaching the deepest portion of the cavity. Data was statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test complemented with Bonferroni's test when the difference between means was significant (α=0,05).
Extensive dye leakage was observed in dentin margins. The results were statistically
higher than in enamel margins (Mann–Whitney U test (p<0.001)). Compomer
restorations produced the highest marginal sealing in dentin, differing from all other
groups. The highest degree of dye leakage in enamel was produced by the microfilled
composite. The majority of the materials exhibited leakage-free margins in up to 70% of the specimens. Both, materials and substrate significantly influenced the sealing ability.
adhesive restorative materials to bovine enamel and dentin. Ninety standard sauceshaped Class V cavities with 3 mm of diameter x 2 mm of depth were prepared in the uccal and lingual faces of 45 bovine incisors. The gingival margin was located in
dentin and the incisal margin in enamel. Teeth were randomly divided in 9 groups
(n=10) and restored with the following materials: five flowable composites, one
microfilled composite, one microhybrid composite, one compomer; and one resinmodified lass ionomer cement (RMGIC). The restorations were made based on the manufacturer’s instructions for adhesive treatment and restorative procedure. After
polishing, the teeth were thermocycled and immersed in 2% basic fuchsin for 24h.
Teeth were, then, serially sectioned generating 3 slices of 1 mm that were observed in a stereomicroscope under x40 magnification. The degree of dye leakage was recorded as follows: 0 – no leakage; 1 – leakage up to half the cavity; 2 – leakage in more than half of the cavity; 3 – Extensive dye leakage, reaching the deepest portion of the cavity. Data was statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test complemented with Bonferroni's test when the difference between means was significant (α=0,05).
Extensive dye leakage was observed in dentin margins. The results were statistically
higher than in enamel margins (Mann–Whitney U test (p<0.001)). Compomer
restorations produced the highest marginal sealing in dentin, differing from all other
groups. The highest degree of dye leakage in enamel was produced by the microfilled
composite. The majority of the materials exhibited leakage-free margins in up to 70% of the specimens. Both, materials and substrate significantly influenced the sealing ability.
Keywords
Compomer, composite resin, microkeakage, resin modified glass ionomer cement
Resumo
O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar o selamento marginal de materiais
restauradores adesivos diferentes ao esmalte e à dentina bovina. Noventa cavidades
Classe V, padronizadas na forma de pires, com 3 mm de diâmetro x 2 mm de
profundidade foram preparadas nas superficies vestibular e palatina de 45 incisivos
bovinos, com margem gengival localizada em dentina e margem incisal em esmalte. Os dentes foram aleatoriamente divididos em 9 grupos (n=10) e restaurados com os
seguintes materiais: cinco resinas flow, uma resina composta microparticulada, uma
resina composta microhíbrida, um compômero e um CIVMR. As restaurações foram
confeccionadas com base nas instruções dos fabricantes para tratamento adesivo e
procedimento restaurador. Depois do polimento, os dentes foram termociclados e
imersos em fucsina básica a 2% por 24h. Os dentes foram seccionados seriadamente
gerando 3 fatias de 1 mm que foram observadas em estereomicroscópio sob
magnificação de 40x. O grau de penetração do corante foi registrado conforme segue: 0 – sem infiltração; 1 – infiltração atingindo metade da cavidade; 2 – infiltração em mais da metade da cavidade; 3 – infiltração extensa, atingindo a porção mais profunda da cavidade. Os dados foram submetidos ao teste não paramétrico de Kruskal-Wallis complementado com o teste de Bonferroni quando a diferença entre as médias foi significante (α=0,05). Infiltração extensa foi observada nas margens dentinárias. Os esultados foram estatisticamente superiores aos produzidos em margens em esmalte Mann–Whitney U (p<0,001)). Restaurações de compômero produziram o maior elamento marginal em dentina, diferindo de todos os outros grupos. O maior grau de nfiltração do corante em esmalte foi produzido pela resina composta microparticulada.
A maioria dos materiais apresentou margens livres de infiltração em até 70% dos
espécimes. Ambos, materiais e substratos influenciaram significativamente no selamento das restaurações.
restauradores adesivos diferentes ao esmalte e à dentina bovina. Noventa cavidades
Classe V, padronizadas na forma de pires, com 3 mm de diâmetro x 2 mm de
profundidade foram preparadas nas superficies vestibular e palatina de 45 incisivos
bovinos, com margem gengival localizada em dentina e margem incisal em esmalte. Os dentes foram aleatoriamente divididos em 9 grupos (n=10) e restaurados com os
seguintes materiais: cinco resinas flow, uma resina composta microparticulada, uma
resina composta microhíbrida, um compômero e um CIVMR. As restaurações foram
confeccionadas com base nas instruções dos fabricantes para tratamento adesivo e
procedimento restaurador. Depois do polimento, os dentes foram termociclados e
imersos em fucsina básica a 2% por 24h. Os dentes foram seccionados seriadamente
gerando 3 fatias de 1 mm que foram observadas em estereomicroscópio sob
magnificação de 40x. O grau de penetração do corante foi registrado conforme segue: 0 – sem infiltração; 1 – infiltração atingindo metade da cavidade; 2 – infiltração em mais da metade da cavidade; 3 – infiltração extensa, atingindo a porção mais profunda da cavidade. Os dados foram submetidos ao teste não paramétrico de Kruskal-Wallis complementado com o teste de Bonferroni quando a diferença entre as médias foi significante (α=0,05). Infiltração extensa foi observada nas margens dentinárias. Os esultados foram estatisticamente superiores aos produzidos em margens em esmalte Mann–Whitney U (p<0,001)). Restaurações de compômero produziram o maior elamento marginal em dentina, diferindo de todos os outros grupos. O maior grau de nfiltração do corante em esmalte foi produzido pela resina composta microparticulada.
A maioria dos materiais apresentou margens livres de infiltração em até 70% dos
espécimes. Ambos, materiais e substratos influenciaram significativamente no selamento das restaurações.
Palavras-chave
Compômero, resina composta, microinfiltração, cimento de ionômero de vidro modificado por resina
References
1. Awliya WY, El-Sahn AM. Leakage pathway of Class V cavities restored with different flowable resin composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2008;33:31-6.
2. Kubo S, Yokota H, Yokota H, Hayashi Y. Microleakage of cervical cavities restored with flowable composites. Am J Dent. 2004;17:33-7.
3. Kidd EA. Microleakage: a review. J Dent. 1976; 4:199-206.
4. Beznos C. Microleakage at the cervical margin of composite Class II cavities with different restorative techniques. Oper Dent. 2001;26:60-9.
5. Gagliardi RM, Avelar RP. Evaluation of microleakage using different bonding agents. Oper Dent. 2002; 27:582-6.
6. Alani AH, Toh CG. Detection of microleakage around dental restorations: a review. Oper Dent. 1997; 22:173-85.
7. Cenci MS, Pereira-Cenci T, Donassollo TA, Sommer L, Strapasson A, Demarco FF. Influence of thermal stress on marginal integrity of restorative materials. J Appl Oral Sci. 2008;16:106-10.
8. Raskin A, D’Hoore W, Gonthier S, Degrange M, Dejou J. Reliability of in vitro microleakage tests: a literature review. J Adhes Dent. 2001;3:295-308.
9. Eick JD, Gwinnett AJ, Pashley DH, Robinson SJ. Current concepts on adhesion to dentin. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 1997;8:306-35.
10. Amaral CM, Hara AT, Pimenta LA, Rodrigues AL Jr. Microleakage of hydrophilic adhesive systems in Class V composite restorations. Am J Dent. 2001;14:31-3.
11. Sensi LG, Marson FC, Monteiro S Jr, Baratieri LN, Caldeira de Andrada MA. Flowable composites as “filled adhesives:” a microleakage study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2004;5:32-41.
12. Mount GJ. Glass ionomers: a review of their current status. Oper Dent. 1999; 24:115-24.
13. Rodrigues JA, De Magalhaes CS, Serra MC, Rodrigues Junior AL. In vitro microleakage of glass-ionomer composite resin hybrid materials. Oper Dent. 1999; 24:89-95.
14. Payne JH 4th. The marginal seal of Class II restorations: flowable composite resin compared to injectable glass ionomer. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1999;23:123-30.
15. Korkmaz Y, Ozel E, Attar N. Effect of flowable lining on microleakage and internal voids in class II composite restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2007;9:189-94.
16. Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift EJ Jr, Stamatiades P, Wilkerson M. A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998; 129:567-77.
17. Estafan AM, Estafan D. Microleakage study of flowable composite resin systems. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2000;21:705-8, 710, 712; quiz 714.
18. Loguercio AD, Reis A, Barbosa AN, Roulet JF. Fiveyear double-blind randomized clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a polyacid-modified resin in noncarious cervical lesions. J Adhes Dent. 2003; 5:323-32.
19. Cenci MS, Venturini D, Pereira-Cenci T, Piva E, Demarco FF. The effect of polishing techniques and time on the surface characteristics and sealing ability of resin composite restorations after one-year storage. Oper Dent. 2008;33:169-76.
20. Roulet JF. Marginal integrity: clinical significance. J Dent. 1994;22 Suppl 1:S9-12.
21. Amarante de Camargo DA, Sinhoret i MA, Correr-Sobrinho L, de Sousa Neto MD, Consani S. Influence of the methodology and evaluation criteria on determining microleakage in dentin-restorative interfaces. Clin Oral Investig. 2006;10: 317-23.
22. Heintze SD, Blunck U, Göhring TN, Rousson V. Marginal adaptation in vitro and clinical outcome of Class V restorations. Dent Mater. 2009. In Press.
23. Lucena-Mar t in C, Gonzalez-Rodr iguez MP, Ferrer-Luque CM, Robles-Gijon V, Navajas JM. Influence of time and thermocycling on marginal sealing of several dentin adhesive systems. Oper Dent. 2001;26:550-5.
24. Gladys S, Van Meerbeek B, Braem MJ, Lambrechts P, Van-Herle G. Comparative physico-mechanical characterisation of new hydride restorative materials with conventional glass-ionomer and resin composite restorative materials. J Dent Res. 1997;76:883-94.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email