Leakage testing for different adhesive systems and composites to permanent teeth

Effect of the Combination of Restorative Material and the Etching Protocol in Enamel Microleakage in Class II Cavities after Thermocycling

This study is aimed at evaluating the marginal microleakage of bulk-fill class II restorations after thermocycling. Thirty-two human third molars received class II cavities prepared on mesial and distal faces. The cavities were bonded according to the adhesive protocol (total or self-etching). The cavities were then restored with composite and divided into 8 groups based on the composite combination: layering technique with Filtek Z350XT (G1 and G5), first layer with Filtek Z350 XT Flowable Restorative and then Filtek Z350XT (G2 and G6), bulk-fill technique with Filtek One Bulk Fill (G3 and G7), and first layer with Filtek One Bulk Fill Flow and Filtek Z350 XT (G4 and G8). The restorations were then subjected to thermocycling (2000 cycles, 5°C and 55°C, dwell time of 30 s). After aging, the restored teeth were immersed in methylene blue for 48 hours. The restorations (n = 32) were sectioned in the middle (two sections). The microleakage results were analyzed by two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test (α = 0.05). The groups did not differ statistically from each other in terms of marginal microleakage (p = 0.295). It can be concluded that there is no difference in the percentage of microleakage between conventional and bulk-fill resins on both consistencies, as well as there is also no statistically significant difference when the adhesive system is used in a conventional or self-etching mode.

In Vitro Analysis of Quality of Dental Adhesive Bond Systems Applied in Various Conditions

Introduction: There are several methods of reducing a microleakage, and one of them is choosing appropriate adhesive material. The aim of the work was the in vitro analysis of 4 bonds: 3M ESPE “Single bond”, Dentsply “Prime and Bond Active”, Coltene “One Coat 7 Universal”, and Kuraray “Clearfil Universal Bond Quick”. Material and methods: 136 healthy molar teeth were collected and randomly split into 4 groups and Vth Class cavities were prepared. Chosen adhesives were used in four groups of teeth with the same composite. Teeth were the thermocycled, sealed, covered with lacquer, and submerged in 1% methylene blue solution for 24 h. After the thermocycling, the vertices of each tooth were sealed using dental wax. Each tooth was then fully covered with lacquer. All teeth were then submerged into 1% methylene blue solution for 24 h in room temperature. In the next step they were transversely cut through a center of restoration. The Olympus BX43 microscope was used to photograph each cut tooth. With the usage of Olympus stream software, measurement of the dye’s leakage was performed. Results. The statistical analysis proved that the most effective material when applied to ideally prepared cavity surface was Dentsply “Prime and Bond Active”. The second material was 3M ESPE “Single Bond”, third—Coltene “One Coat 7 Universal” and fourth—Kuraray “Clearfil Universal Bond Quick”. The most effective material applied to a too-dry surface was Dentsply “Prime and Bond Active”, second—3M ESPE “Single Bond”, third—Coltene “One Coat 7 Universal” and fourth—Kuraray “Clearfil Universal Bond Quick”. When it comes to too damp surfaces the best results were obtained with Dentsply “Prime and Bond Active” then Coltene “One Coat 7 Universal”, 3M ESPE “Single Bond” and Kuraray “Clearfil Universal Bond Quick”. Conclusion: The level of cavity dampness influences the quality of adhesives. Better results are obtained with over-dried surfaces than over-damp, which is connected with the dilution of the material.