PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Mi-Ae Lee, Duck-Kyu Seo, Ho-Hyun Son, Byeong-Hoon Cho
Abstract
During a composite resin restoration, an anticipating contraction gap is usually tried to seal with low-viscosity resin after successive polishing, etching, rinsing and drying steps, which as a whole is called rebonding procedure. However, the gap might already have been filled with water or debris before applying the sealing resin. We hypothesized that microleakage would decrease if the rebonding agent was applied before the polishing step, i.e., immediately after curing composite resin. On the buccal and lingual surfaces of 35 extracted human molar teeth, class V cavities were prepared withthe occlusal margin in enamel and the gingival margin in dentin. They were restored with a hybrid composite resin Z250 (3M ESPE, USA) using an adhesive AdperTM Single Bond 2 (3M ESPE). As rebonding agents, BisCover LV (Bisco, USA), ScotchBond Multi-Purpose adhesive (3M ESPE) and an experimental adhesive were applied on the restoration margins before polishing step or after successive polishing and etching steps. The infiltration depth of 2% methylene blue into the margin was measured using an optical stereomicroscope. The correlation between viscosity of rebonding agents and mciroleakage was also evaluated. There were no statistically significant differences in the microleakage within the rebonding procedures, within the rebonding agents, and within the margins. However, when the restorations were not rebonded, the microleakage at gingival margin was significantly higher than those groups rebonded with 3 agents (p < 0.05). The difference was not observed at the occlusal margin. No significant correlation was found between viscosity of rebonding agents and microleakage, except very weak correlation in case of rebonding after polishing and etching at gingival margin (r = -0.326, p = 0.041).
Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Depth of dye penetration (C, cervical margin of non-etched side; C etch, cervical margin of etched side; O, occlusal margin of non-etched side; O etch, occlusal margin of etched side).
Table 3
The mean microleakage of tested specimens (Mean ± SD)
*Bis, Biscover LV; MP, Scotchbond Multipurpose Plus; EA, Experimental adhesive; C, cervical margin of non-etched side; C etch, cervical margin of etched side; O, occlusal margin of non-etched side; O etch, occlusal margin of etched side.
†The viscosity of control group was assumed to be 0.001 for calculating correlation coefficient, because the smaller numbers only affected a very small change.
References
1. Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res. 1955. 34(6):849–853.
2. Burgess JO. Dental materials for the restoration of root surface caries. Am J Dent. 1995. 8(6):342–351.
3. Ferracane JL. Using posterior composites appropriately. J Am Dent Assoc. 1992. 123(7):53–58.
4. Htang A, Ohsawa M, Matsumoto H. Fatigue resistance of composite restorations: effect of filler content. Dent Mater. 1995. 11(1):7–13.
5. Tjan AH, Tan DE. Microleakage at gingival margins of Class V composite resin restorations rebonded with various low-viscosity resin systems. Quintessence Int. 1991. 22(7):565–573.
6. Munro GA, Hilton TJ, Hermesch CB. In vitro microleakage of etched and rebonded Class 5 composite resin restorations. Oper Dent. 1996. 21(5):203–208.
7. Ramos RP, Chimello DT, Chinelatti MA, Dibb RG, Mondelli J. Effect of three surface sealants on marginal sealing of Class V composite resin restorations. Oper Dent. 2000. 25(5):448–453.
8. Reid JS, Saunders WP, Chen YY. The effect of bonding agent and fissure sealant on microleakage of composite resin restorations. Quintessence Int. 1991. 22(4):295–298.
9. Kubo S, Yokota H, Hayashi Y. Effect of low-viscosity resin-based composite on the microleakage of cervical restorations. Am J Dent. 2003. 16(4):244–248.
10. Torstenson B, Oden A. Effects of bonding agent types and incremental techniques on minimizing contraction gaps around resin composites. Dent Mater. 1989. 5(4):218–223.
11. McLean JW, Powis DR, Prosser HJ, Wilson AD. The use of glass-ionomer cements in bonding composite resins to dentine. Br Dent J. 1985. 158(11):410–414.
12. Marais JT, Dannheimer MF, Germishuys PJ, Borman JW. Depth of cure of light-cured composite resin with light-curing units of different intensity. J Dent Assoc S Afr. 1997. 52(6):403–407.
13. Unterbrink GL, Muessner R. Influence of light intensity on two restorative systems. J Dent. 1995. 23(3):183–189.
14. Jayasooriya PR, Pereira PN, Nikaido T, Burrow MF, Tagami J. The effect of a resin coating on the interfacial adaptation of composite inlays. Oper Dent. 2003. 28(1):28–35.
15. Pameijer CH, Wendt SL Jr. Microleakage of "surfacesealing" materials. Am J Dent. 1995. 8(1):43–46.
16. May KN Jr, Swift EJ Jr, Wilder AD Jr, Futrell SC. Effect of a surface sealant on microleakage of Class V restorations. Am J Dent. 1996. 9(3):133–136.
17. Torstenson B, Brannstrom M, Mattsson B. A new method for sealing composite resin contraction gaps in lined cavities. J Dent Res. 1985. 64(3):450–453.
18. Vankerckhoven H, Lambrechts P, van Beylen M, Davidson CL, Vanherle G. Unreacted methacrylate groups on the surfaces of composite resins. J Dent Res. 1982. 61(6):791–795.
19. Koo BJ, Shin DH. The effect of C-factor and volume on microleakage of composite resin restorations with enamel margins. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2006. 31(6):452–459.
20. Judes H, Eli I, Lieberman R, Serebro L. Rebonding as a method of controlling marginal microleakage in composite resin restoration. New York Journal of Dentistry. 1982. 52:137–143.
21. Cho YG, Kim MH, Lee MG. Effect of resin sealants on the reduction of microleakage in composite restorations. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2006. 31(4):282–289.
22. Dickinson GL, Leinfelder KF. Assessing the long-term effect of a surface penetrating sealant. J Am Dent Assoc. 1993. 124(7):68–72.
23. Erhardt MC, Magalhaes CS, Serra MC. The effect of rebonding on microleakage of class V aesthetic restorations. Oper Dent. 2002. 27(4):396–402.
24. Estafan D, Dussetschleger FL, Miuo LE, Kondamani J. Class V lesions restored with flowable composite and added surface sealing resin. Gen Dent. 2000. 48(1):78–80.
25. Ramos RP, Chinelatti MA, Chimello DT, Dibb RG. Assessing microleakage in resin composite restorations rebonded with a surface sealant and three low-viscosity resin systems. Quintessence Int. 2002. 33(6):450–456.
26. Prati C, Valdre G, Mongiorgi R, Bertocchi G, Savino A. Changes in enamel and dentin interface around composite class V restorations. J Dent Res. 1992. 71:1014.
27. Staninec M, Mochizuki A, Tanizaki K, Jukuda K, Tsuchitani Y. Interfacial space, marginal leakage, and enamel cracks around composite resins. Oper Dent. 1986. 11(1):14–24.
28. Owens BM, Johnson WW. Effect of new generation surface sealants on the marginal permeability of Class V resin composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2006. 31(4):481–488.
29. Cho YG, Choi HY. Effect of Bisconver™ on the marginal microleakage of composite resin restoration. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2005. 30(5):355–362.
30. Pashley DH. Clinical considerations of microleakage. J Endod. 1990. 16(2):70–77.
31. Barone-Smith CE, Dickens SH. Effect of surface sealing on the microleakage of bonded restorations. J Dent Res. 1999. 78:155. abst #394.
32. Hansen EK, Asmussen E. Marginal adaptation of posterior resins: effect of dentin-bonding agent and hygroscopic expansion. Dent Mater. 1989. 5(2):122–126.
33. Yu XY, Wieczkowski G, Davis EL, Joynt RB. Influence of finishing technique on microleakage. J Esthet Dent. 1990. 2(5):142–144.
34. Garcia-Godoy F, Malone WF. Microleakage of posterior composite restorations after rebonding. Compendium. 1987. 8(8):606–609.
XML Download