The influence of IRM temporary restorations on marginal microleakage of dentin adhesives

Young-Gon Cho; Hyun-Kyung Kim; Young-Gon Lee

doi:10.5395/JKACD.2003.28.1.001

Journal List > J Korean Acad Conserv Dent > v.28(1) > 1056044

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Cho, Kim, and Lee: The influence of IRM temporary restorations on marginal microleakage of dentin adhesives

Original Article

Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry

Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2003; 28(1): 1-10.

Published online: 31 January 2003

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2003.28.1.001

The influence of IRM temporary restorations on marginal microleakage of dentin adhesives

Young-Gon Cho, Hyun-Kyung Kim, Young-Gon Lee

Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Chosun University, Korea.

Corresponding author (ygcho@mail.chosun.ac.kr)

(open-access):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This study investigated the influence of IRM on marginal microleakage of 5th generation adhesives. Class V cavities with gingival margins in dentin were prepared on both buccal and lingual surfaces of 60 extracted human molar teeth. Prepared teeth were randomly divided into six groups. Group 1 and 4 received no temporary restoration with IRM. Group 2 and 5 were covered with IRM mixed at P/L ratio(10g/1g). Group 3 and 6 were covered with IRM mixed at P/L ratio(10g/2g). The temporary restorations were removed mechanically with an ultrasonic scaler after one-week storage in distilled water. The cavities were restored using one of two adhesives and composites; Single Bond/Filtek Z 250(Group 1, 2 and 3), UniFil Bond/UniFil F(Group 4, 5 and 6).

Following one day storage in distilled water, the restored teeth were thermocycled for 500 cycles(between 5℃ and 55℃) and immersed in 2% methylene blue for dye penetration testing. The results were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis Test, Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon signed ranked test at a significance level of 0.05.

The results of this study were as follows:

1. Ranking of mean microleakage scores at the enamel margins was Group 1<Group 3<Group 2<Group 4<Group 5<Group 6. The microleakage of Group 6 was significantly higher than that of Groups 1, 2 and 3(p<0.05).

2. At the enamel margins, without regard to pretreatment with IRM, the microleakage of Single Bond was lower than that of UniFil Bond.

3. Ranking of mean microleakage scores at the dentin margins was Group 4<Group 1<Group 5<Group 6<Group 3<Group 2. But there were no significant difference among microleakages of each group(p>0.05).

4. At the dentin margins, the microleakage of the group not pretreated with IRM was lower than that of the group pretreated with IRM. And the microleakage of UniFil Bond was lower than that of Single Bond.

5. Compared with microleakages between the enamel and dentin margins of each groups, Group 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 at dentin margin were higher microleakage than those at enamel margin. There were significant difference between enamel and dentin microleakage of Group 2 and 3(p<0.05).

Keywords: Temporary restoration, Marginal microleakage, IRM, Dentin adhesives, Self-etching primer, One bottle adhesive

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1

Numbers of leakage scores of each group at enamel margins

Fig. 2

Numbers of leakage scores of each group at dentin margins

Table 1

Materials and their manufacturers

Table 2

Adhesive systems and their compositions

Table 3

Group classification

Table 4

Distribution of microleakage scores and means at enamel margins

Table 5

Distribution of microleakage scores and means at dentin margins

Table 6

Statistical analysis of microleakage at enamel margin between each group by Mann-Whitney test

^*: significant differences (p<0.05),

- : no-significant differences (p>0.05)

Table 7

Statistical analysis of microleakage at dentin margin between each group by Mann-Whitney test

- : no-significant differences (p>0.05)

Table 8

Statistical analysis of microleakage at enamel and dentin margin between each group by Wilcoxon signed rank sum test

^*: significant differences (p<0.05), - : no-significant differences (p>0.05)

References

1. Bayne SC, Heyman HO, Swift EJ Jr. Update on dental composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 1994. 125(6):687–701.

2. Murray PE, Hafez AA, Smith AJ, Cox CF. Bacterial microleakage and pulp inflammation associated with various restorative materials. Dent Mater. 2002. 18:470–478.

3. Yap AUJ, Shah KC, Loh EJ, Sim SS, Tan CC. Influence of eugenol-containing temporary restorations on bond strength of composite to dentin. Oper Dent. 2001. 26:556–561.

4. Abou Hashieh I, Camps J, Dejou J, Franquin JC. Eugenol diffusion through dentin related to dentin hydraulic conductance. Dent Mater. 1998. 14:229–236.

5. Hume WR. An analysis of the release and diffusion through dentin of eugenol from zinc oxide-eugenol mixtures. J Dent Res. 1984. 63(6):881–884.

6. Kielbassa AM, Attin T, Hellwig E. Diffusion behavior of eugenol from zinc oxide-eugenol mixtures through human and bovine dentin in vitro. Oper Dent. 1997. 22(1):15–20.

7. Taira J, Ikemoto T, Yoneya T, Hagi A, Murakami A, Makino K. Essential oils phenyl propanoids. Useful as OH scavenger? Free Radic Res Commun. 1992. 16:197–204.

8. Grajower R, Hirschfeld Z, Zalkind M. Compatibility of a composite resin with pulp insulating materials. A scanning electron microscope study. J Prosthet Dent. 1974. 32(1):70–77.

9. Lingard GL, Davies EH, Von Fraunhofer JA. The interaction between lining materials and composite resin restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil. 1981. 8(2):121–129.

10. Marshall SJ, Marshall GW, Hardcourt JK. The influence of various cavity bases on the micro-hardness of composite. Aust Dent J. 1982. 27(5):291–295.

11. Baier RE. Principles of adhesion. Oper Dent. 1992. Suppl 5. 1–9.

12. Al-Ehaideb AA, Mohammed H. Microleakage of "one-bottle" dentin adhesives. Oper Dent. 2001. 26:172–175.

13. Gordan VV, Vargas MA, Cobb DS, Denehy GE. Evaluation of adhesive systems using acidic primers. Am J Dent. 1997. 10(5):219–223.

14. Nakajima M, Sano H, Urabe I, Tagami J, Pashley DH. Bond strength of single-bottle dentin adhesives to caries-affected dentin. Oper Dent. 2000. 25:2–10.

15. Ogata M, Okuda M, Nakajima M, Pereira PNR, Sano H, Tagami J. Influence of the direction of tubules on bond strength to dentin. Oper Dent. 2001. 26:27–35.

16. Prati C, Pashley DH, Chersoni S, Mongiorgi R. Marginal hybrid layer in class V restorations. Oper Dent. 2000. 25:228–233.

17. Yoshiyama M, Urayama A, Kimochi T, Matsuo T, Pashley DH. Comparison of conventional vs self-etching adhesives bonds to caries-affected dentin. Oper Dent. 2000. 25:163–169.

18. Cho YG, Kim YK, Ahn JM. Microleakage and marginal hybrid layer of dentin adhesives. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2002. 27(1):34–41.

19. Gallo JR, Burgess JO, Xu X. Effect of delayed application on shear bond strength of four fifth-generation bonding systems. Oper Dent. 2001. 26:48–51.

20. Nakabayashi N. Dentinal bonding mechanism. Quintessence Int. 1991. 22(2):73–74.

21. Kanca J. Effect of resin primer solvents and surface wetness on resin composite bond strength to dentin. Am J Dent. 1992. 5(4):213–215.

22. Ritter AV, Heyman HO, Swift E Jr, Perdigao J, Rosa BT. Effect of different re-wetting techniques on dentin shear bond strength. J Esthet Dent. 2000. 12:85–96.

23. Zheng L, Pereira PNR, Nakajima M, Sano H, Tagami J. Relationship between adhesive thickness and microtensile bond strength. Oper Dent. 2001. 26:97–104.

24. Hanning M, Reinhardt KJ, Bott B. Composite to dentin bond strength, micromorphology of the bonded dentin interface and marginal adaptation of class II composite resin restorations using self-etching primers. Oper Dent. 2001. 26:157–165.

25. Chigira H, Yukitani W, Hasegawa T, Manabe A, Itoh K, Hayakawa T, Debari K, Wakumoto S, Hisamitsu H. Self-etching dentin primers containing phenyl-P. J Dent Res. 1994. 73(5):1088–1095.

26. Rosa BT, Perdigao J. Bond strengths of nonrinsing adhesives. Quintessence Int. 2000. 31:353–358.

27. Schwartz R, Davis R, Mayhew R. The effect of a ZOE temporary cement on the bond strength of a resin luting cement. Am J Dent. 1990. 3(1):28–30.

28. Jung M, Ganss C, Senger S. Effect of eugenol-containing temporary cement on bond strength of composite to enamel. Oper Dent. 1998. 23(2):63–68.

29. Xie J, Power JM, McGuckin RS. In vitro bond strength of two adhesives to enamel and dentin under normal and contaminated conditions. Dent Mater. 1993. 9(5):295–299.

30. Terata R, Nakashima K, Obara M, Kubota M. Characterization of enamel and dentin surface after removal of temporary cement-effect of temporary cement on tensile bond strength of resin luting cement. Dent Mater J. 1994. 13(2):148–154.

31. Ganss C, Jung M. Effect of eugenol-containing temporary cement on bond strength of composite to dentin. Oper Dent. 1998. 23(2):55–62.

32. Kelsey WP, Latta MA, Blankenau RJ. Effect of provision restorations on dentin bond strength of resin cements. Am J Dent. 1998. 11:67–70.

33. Markowitz K, Moynihan M, Liu M, Kim S. Biologic properties of eugenol and zinc oxide-eugenol. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1992. 73:729–737.

34. Jang HS, Cho KJ. Effect of Temporary Cement on Tensile Bond Strength of Dentin Bonding Agent. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 1995. 20(2):685–698.

35. Woody TL, Davis RD. The effect of eugenol-containing and eugenol free temporary cements on microleakage in resin bonded restorations. Oper Dent. 1992. 17(5):175–180.

36. Peutzfeldt A, Asmunssen E. Influence of engenol-containing temporary cement on efficacy of dentin-bonding system. Eur J Oral Sci. 1999. 107(1):65–69.

37. Yap AUJ, Shah KC, Loh EJ, Sim SS, Tan CC. Influence of ZOE temporary restorations on microleakage in composite restoration. Oper Dent. 2002. 27:142–146.

38. Hannig M, Reinhardt KJ, Bott B. Self-etching primer vs phosphoric acid: an alternative concept for composite-to-enamel bonding. Oper Dent. 1999. 24:172–180.

39. Torii Y, Itou R, Hikasa S, Iwata Y. Enamel tensile bond strength and morphology of resin-enamel interface created by acid etching system with or without moisture and self-etching priming system. J Oral Rehabil. 2002. 29:528–533.

40. Perdigao J, Lopes L, Lambrechts P. Effect of self-etching primer on enamel shear bond strengths and SEM morphology. Am J Dent. 1997. 10:141–146.

41. Nakanuma K, Arisue K, Kajiwara A, Niinuma A, Murakami Y, Yamazaki M, Hayakawa T, Nemoto K. Evaluation of new type of commercially available adhesive systems-effect of total treatment for enamel and dentin. Jpn J Conserv Dent. 1996. 39:304–314.

42. Terata R. Characterization of enamel and dentin surfaces after removal of temporary cement - study on removal of temporary cement. Dent Mater J. 1993. 12:18–28.

43. Dibdin GH, Poole DF. Surface area and pore size analysis for human enamel and dentin by water vapour sorption. Arch Oral Biol. 1982. 27:235–241.

44. Finger WJ, Fritz UB. Resin bonding to enamel and dentin with one-component UDMA/HEMA adhesives. Eur J Oral Sci. 1997. 105(2):183–186.

45. Uno S, Inoue H, Finger WJ, Inouw S, Sano H. Microtensile bond strength evaluation of three adhesive systems in cervical dentin cavities. J Adhes Dent. 2001. 3:333–341.

TOOLS

Similar articles