Limits...
Resin composite repair: Quantitative microleakage evaluation of resin-resin and resin-tooth interfaces with different surface treatments.

Celik C, Cehreli SB, Arhun N - Eur J Dent (2015 Jan-Mar)

Bottom Line: The type of initial repaired restorative material did not affect the microleakage.Pre-existing composite type does not affect the microleakage issue.All-in-one adhesive resin (BeautiBond) may not be preferred in resin composite repair in terms of microleakage prevention.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Baskent University, Bahcelievler, Ankara, Turkiye.

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim was to evaluate the effect of different adhesive systems and surface treatments on the integrity of resin-resin and resin-tooth interfaces after partial removal of preexisting resin composites using quantitative image analysis for microleakage testing protocol.

Materials and methods: A total of 80 human molar teeth were restored with either of the resin composites (Filtek Z250/GrandioSO) occlusally. The teeth were thermocycled (1000×). Mesial and distal 1/3 parts of the restorations were removed out leaving only middle part. One side of the cavity was finished with course diamond bur and the other was air-abraded with 50 μm Al2O3. They were randomly divided into four groups (n = 10) to receive: Group 1: Adper Single Bond 2; Group 2: All Bond 3; Group 3: ClearfilSE; Group 4: BeautiBond, before being repaired with the same resin composite (Filtek Z250). The specimens were re-thermocycled (1000×), sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic fuchsin, sectioned mesiodistally and photographed digitally. The extent of dye penetration was measured by image analysis software (ImageJ) for both bur-finished and air-abraded surfaces at resin-tooth and resin-resin interfaces. The data were analyzed statistically.

Results: BeautiBond exhibited the most microleakage at every site. Irrespective of adhesive and initial composite type, air-abrasion showed less microleakage except for BeautiBond. The type of initial repaired restorative material did not affect the microleakage. BeautiBond adhesive may not be preferred in resin composite repair in terms of microleakage prevention.

Conclusions: Surface treatment with air-abrasion produced the lowest microleakage scores, independent of the adhesive systems and the pre-existing resin composite type. Pre-existing composite type does not affect the microleakage issue. All-in-one adhesive resin (BeautiBond) may not be preferred in resin composite repair in terms of microleakage prevention.

No MeSH data available.


Z250 restoration repaired with BeautiBond adhesive system
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4319307&req=5

Figure 3: Z250 restoration repaired with BeautiBond adhesive system

Mentions: The Kruskal–Wallis test revealed that the difference between the experimental regions (resin-tooth or resin-resin interface) with respect to adhesive systems was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Multiple comparisons with the Mann–Whitney U-test with Bon Ferroni correction revealed that only BeautiBond showed statistically significant more microleakage when compared with other adhesive systems at every site of the cavity, irrespective of the utilized resin composite type (P < 0.0166) [Table 3]. Figures 2 and 3 show representative Grandio or Z250 restorations repaired with BeautiBond adhesive system. Figure 4 presents a sealed resin-resin and tooth-resin interface after repairing.


Resin composite repair: Quantitative microleakage evaluation of resin-resin and resin-tooth interfaces with different surface treatments.

Celik C, Cehreli SB, Arhun N - Eur J Dent (2015 Jan-Mar)

Z250 restoration repaired with BeautiBond adhesive system
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4319307&req=5

Figure 3: Z250 restoration repaired with BeautiBond adhesive system
Mentions: The Kruskal–Wallis test revealed that the difference between the experimental regions (resin-tooth or resin-resin interface) with respect to adhesive systems was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Multiple comparisons with the Mann–Whitney U-test with Bon Ferroni correction revealed that only BeautiBond showed statistically significant more microleakage when compared with other adhesive systems at every site of the cavity, irrespective of the utilized resin composite type (P < 0.0166) [Table 3]. Figures 2 and 3 show representative Grandio or Z250 restorations repaired with BeautiBond adhesive system. Figure 4 presents a sealed resin-resin and tooth-resin interface after repairing.

Bottom Line: The type of initial repaired restorative material did not affect the microleakage.Pre-existing composite type does not affect the microleakage issue.All-in-one adhesive resin (BeautiBond) may not be preferred in resin composite repair in terms of microleakage prevention.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Baskent University, Bahcelievler, Ankara, Turkiye.

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim was to evaluate the effect of different adhesive systems and surface treatments on the integrity of resin-resin and resin-tooth interfaces after partial removal of preexisting resin composites using quantitative image analysis for microleakage testing protocol.

Materials and methods: A total of 80 human molar teeth were restored with either of the resin composites (Filtek Z250/GrandioSO) occlusally. The teeth were thermocycled (1000×). Mesial and distal 1/3 parts of the restorations were removed out leaving only middle part. One side of the cavity was finished with course diamond bur and the other was air-abraded with 50 μm Al2O3. They were randomly divided into four groups (n = 10) to receive: Group 1: Adper Single Bond 2; Group 2: All Bond 3; Group 3: ClearfilSE; Group 4: BeautiBond, before being repaired with the same resin composite (Filtek Z250). The specimens were re-thermocycled (1000×), sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic fuchsin, sectioned mesiodistally and photographed digitally. The extent of dye penetration was measured by image analysis software (ImageJ) for both bur-finished and air-abraded surfaces at resin-tooth and resin-resin interfaces. The data were analyzed statistically.

Results: BeautiBond exhibited the most microleakage at every site. Irrespective of adhesive and initial composite type, air-abrasion showed less microleakage except for BeautiBond. The type of initial repaired restorative material did not affect the microleakage. BeautiBond adhesive may not be preferred in resin composite repair in terms of microleakage prevention.

Conclusions: Surface treatment with air-abrasion produced the lowest microleakage scores, independent of the adhesive systems and the pre-existing resin composite type. Pre-existing composite type does not affect the microleakage issue. All-in-one adhesive resin (BeautiBond) may not be preferred in resin composite repair in terms of microleakage prevention.

No MeSH data available.