Microleakage of three different combinations of adhesive and composite resins


Published: 16 September 2021
Abstract Views: 929
pdf: 568
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

  • E. Ferrari Cagidiaco Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Biomaterials, School of Dental Medicine, University of Siena, Italy, Italy.
  • D. Karafili Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Biomaterials, School of Dental Medicine, University of Siena, Italy, Italy.
  • G. Verniani Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Biomaterials, School of Dental Medicine, University of Siena, Italy, Italy.
  • G. Zucca Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Biomaterials, School of Dental Medicine, University of Siena, Italy, Italy.
  • M. Ferrari MD, DMD, PhD, Dean, Chair and Professor, Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Biomaterials, School of Dental Medicine, University of Siena, Italy, Italy.

Aims The aim of the present in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of 3 adhesive systems on microleakage of direct composite restorations with proximal margins under the cement-enamel junction (CEJ) and in the enamel.

Materials and methods In 30 extracted molars standardized MOD (mesio-occlusal-distal) cavities were prepared with a proximal margin located 1 mm under the cement-enamel junction and another one in the enamel, and subsequently randomly divided in 3 groups of 10 using 3 different adhesives and the same composite: Flowable (G-aenial Universal Injectable, GC) + universal adhesive (G2-Bond Universal, GC) with selective-etch technique (Group 1); Flowable (G-aenial Universal Injectable, GC) + self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond 2, Kuraray) with 2-step technique (Group 2); Flowable (G-aenial Universal Injectable, GC) + total-etch adhesive (Optibond FL, Kerr) with 3-step technique (Group 3). Samples were tested for microleakage using silver nitrate and infiltration was classified in 5 levels. The differences in microleakage were statistically evaluated with significance set at p<0.05.

Results In the margin located in the enamel, group 1 showed an average of 0 microleakage, group 2 an average of 0.2 and group 3 an average of 0.1. In the margin located in the dentin, group 1 showed an average score of 1.1, group 2 of 2.15 and group 3 of 1.25. No statistically significant difference was found in the enamel.

Conclusion The combination of adhesive G2-Bond Universal and Optibond FL showed the highest sealing ability both in margins located in the enamel and margins located in the dentin. The adhesive interface in the enamel produced a very good seal, while the adhesive interface in the dentin showed varying degrees of microleakage in all groups.


Ferrari Cagidiaco, E., Karafili, D., Verniani, G., Zucca, G., & Ferrari, M. (2021). Microleakage of three different combinations of adhesive and composite resins. Journal of Osseointegration, 13(3), 115–120. https://doi.org/10.23805/JO.2021.13.03.3

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations