Laboratory comparison of different microleakage evaluation methods in class five composite resin restorations

Number of pages: 87 File Format: word File Code: 32111
Year: 2012 University Degree: Master's degree Category: Medical Sciences
  • Part of the Content
  • Contents & Resources
  • Summary of Laboratory comparison of different microleakage evaluation methods in class five composite resin restorations

    Dissertation to receive a doctorate degree in dentistry

    Abstract

    Objective

    The purpose of this study is to compare the microleakage of adhesive total etch and self etch in three methods
    Fluid filtration, dye penetration and dye extraction, as well as determining the statistical relationship between these three methods.

    Materials and methods

    In this laboratory study, 72 extracted human premolar teeth, class five cavities, were shaved up to 1 mm below the CEJ on the buccal surfaces in the cervical 1/3. Opti bond solo plus total adhesive was used in half of the holes and All in one self-etch adhesive was used in the other half, then all the holes were repaired with light cure composite called Herculite XRV and according to the microleakage measurement method, the samples were divided into three main groups of 24 and each group was divided into two subgroups of 12 based on the type of adhesive used: in the first group, the test was to evaluate the microleakage of the samples using the Dye method. extraction, dye penetration method was used in the second group and fluid filtration method was used in the third group. Opti Bond Solo Plus total etch adhesive was used in the first subgroup of each group and Opti Bond All in One self etch adhesive was used in the second subgroup. To analyze the data, paired t-tests and Mann-Whitney tests were used, and the correlation coefficient with a significance level of ? = 0.05 was used.

    Findings

    Regarding the comparison of microleakage of two types of adhesives used, there was no significant difference between the microleakage of these adhesives for the dye extraction method (P=0.657). For the dye penetration method, the difference in the microleakage of adhesives was not significant (P=0.755), but in the case of the Fluid filtration method, the microleakage of self-etch adhesive was significantly higher than that of total-etch adhesive (P=0.012).

    Also, no significant relationship was found between different methods of microleakage evaluation for different adhesives (P 0.05).

    Conclusion

     

    According to the data of this study, it can be concluded that using the Fluid filtration method to evaluate microleakage, Opti Bond All In One self-etch adhesive has more microleakage than Opti Bond Solo Plus total etch adhesive.

     

    Key words

    micro leakage - liquid penetration - dye penetration - dye leakage

     

     

    Introduction

     

    One ??of the beauty materials for repairing Class 5 lesions and caries is Light Cure composites with various self-etch or total etch dentin adhesives, which make the composite stick to the dentin(1). Adhesion to dentin is still more challenging than adhesion to enamel, and an adhesive restoration may not be sufficiently attached to the etched dentin surface and cause marginal seam formation and microleakage (2).

    Various laboratory studies on the microleakage of self-etch and total-etch adhesives, which generally include class five composite restorations. is done In these studies, in order to measure microleakage, the samples are immersed in different color solutions such as methylene blue, silver nitrate or fuchsia base, and the depth of dye penetration in each sample is determined at the resin-dentin interface (3). In order to more accurately evaluate the microleakage of composite restorations, in addition to the older methods of fluid filtration and dye penetration, it is necessary to use new methods of microleakage evaluation such as dye extraction. In this method, in order to determine microleakage, the dissolution rate of methylene blue colored solution in nitric acid is measured by a spectrophotometer with a wavelength of 550 nm.Therefore, in this research, in order to more accurately evaluate the microleakage of composite restorations with total etch and self etch adhesives, in addition to the common methods of fluid filtration and dye penetration, the newer method of dye extraction was used, and by considering the fluid filtration method as a control, we determined the methods that are meaningfully related. Also, the average microleakage of the total etch and self-etch adhesives of the study was investigated according to three different methods of microleakage assessment. It is ivory. In terms of characteristics, each composite has four building components: polymer matrix, filler particles, binding agent of the above-mentioned two components and a type of primer. The matrix is ??a continuous component to which other components are added. Most of the composite matrices are based on Bis-GMA resin (bisphenol A- glycidyl methacrylate). Some composites use urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) instead of Bis-GMA, while another group uses a combination of two materials. Recently, some manufacturers have added TEG-DMA (triethylene glycol dimethacrylate), which is a low-viscosity resin used as a diluent, as a component of the material.

    The formulation of the material using Bis-EMA (Bisphenol A, polyethylene glycol diether dimethacrylate) may have better application properties and shrinkage. find a smaller volume (4). The filler particles are usually some type of glass (such as barium glass) or silicon dioxide, which are added to the matrix to improve its physical properties. Fillers improve transparency, reduce the coefficient of heat expansion, reduce polymerization shrinkage, make the material harder, denser and more resistant to wear. Generally, the higher the percentage of filler added (both by volume and weight), the better the physical properties of the composite will be. The filler addition has a certain maximum, after which the material becomes too viscous for clinical use.

    The surface of the filler particles is impregnated with silane. This material is a type of bonding agent whose purpose is to improve adhesion to the matrix. Without this binding agent, the composite is not strong enough and the filler particles tend to be torn off from the matrix as soon as they reach the surface (5). The initiator activates the polymerization reaction of composites. Activation may be initiated by a chemical reaction or exposure to light of the correct wavelength. Most of the common composite restorative materials today rely on the initiation of polymerization by exposure to visible light in the range of 460 to 480 nm (blue light). The aim of this study was to compare the microleakage of total-etch and self-etch adhesives by three methods including dye extraction, dye penetration and fluid filtration with determining the correlation value among these techniques. teeth were selected for this in vitro study and Class 5 cavities were prepared on the buccal surface of these at the cemento-enamel junction area. It was applied for half of these cavities, Opti Bond Solo Plus; a total-etch adhesive and another half Opti Bond All in One; self-etch adhesive and then all of them were restored with light cure resin composite (Herculite XRV). Then samples were divided randomly into three subgroups based on the method of microleakage measurement (n=12). In the first pair group, leakage was assessed by dye extraction method. Dye penetration and fluid filtration methods were used in the second and third pair groups for the same purpose respectively. Data were analyzed by Paired t-test and MannWhiteny test and correlation coefficient (?=0.05).

    Results

    There were no significant difference in dye extraction (P=0.657) and dye penetration (P=0.755) methods between the microleakage of total-etch and self-etch adhesives. Microleakage of self-etch adhesive in fluid filtration technique was significantly more than total-etch adhesive (P=0.

  • Contents & References of Laboratory comparison of different microleakage evaluation methods in class five composite resin restorations

    List:

    Title.. page

    Persian abstract .. 1

    Chapter one: Introduction and review of articles

    Introduction.. 4

    Composite resins.. 6

    Physical properties of composite resin. 7

    Application features of composite resins. 9

    Optical properties of composite resins. 10

    Normal composites.. 12

    Microfil composites.. 13

    Hybrid composites.. 14

    Silanable composites.. 14

    Condensable composites.. 15

    Nanofil composites.. 16

    Adhesion to enamel and dentine.. 17

    Challenges in adhesion to dentine. 19

    Classification of adhesives.. 22

    Etch & Rinse adhesives or Total H. 22

    Etch & rinse three-step versus two-step adhesives. 25

    Self-etch adhesives.. 26

    The first generation of bonding materials.. 31

    The second generation of bonding materials.. 33

    The third generation of bonding materials.. 34

    The fourth generation of bonding materials. 36

    The fifth generation of bonding materials. 37

    The sixth generation of bonding materials. 38

    The seventh generation of bonding materials. 39

    Using adhesive resin.. 40

    Micro leakage.. 41

    Types of laboratory methods to check micro leakage. 44

    Review of the articles.. 48

    Statement of the problem.. 56

    General objective.. 56

    Specific objectives.. 56

    Chapter two: materials and methods

    Materials and methods.. 58

    Selection and preparation of samples.. 60

    Performing evaluation methods Micro leakage.. 63

    Variables.. 71

    Data analysis method.. 72

    Chapter three: findings

    Findings.. 73

    Part one.. 73

    Part two: data analysis.. 75

    Chapter four: discussion

    Discussion..81

    Chapter Five: Conclusions and Suggestions

    Conclusions and Suggestions. 87

    Resources..88

    Abstract

    Source:

     

    Schwartz RB, Hilton TJ, et al.  Bonding to enamel and dentin. Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry 2006; 3 th edition: Chapter 5.

    Theodore M. Roberson, Harald O. Heymann, et al. Art and science of operative dentistry 2006; 5 th edition: Chapter 5.

    Davidson CL, Abdolla AI. Effect of occlusal load cycling on the marginal integrity of adhesive class V restorations, Am J dent 1994; 7: 111-114.

    Stansbury JW. Synthesis and evaluation of novel multifunctional oligomers for dentistry. J Dent Res 1992; 71: 434-437.

    Leinfelder, KF Suzuki S. Invitro wear device for determining posterior composite wear. J Am Dent Assoc 1999; 130: 1347-1353.

    Feilzer Aj, De Gee Aj, et al. Curing contraction of composites and glass-ionomer cements, J Prosthet Dent 1988; 59: 297-300.

    Crim G, Chapman K. Effect of placement techniques on microleakage of dentin-bonded composite resin, Quintessence. Int. 1986; 17: 21-24.

    Lutz F, Krejci I, et al. Quality and durability of marginal adaptation inbonded composite restorations, Dent Mater 1991; 7: 107-113.

    Alster D, Feilzer AJ, et al. Aging affects two modes of nanoleakage expression in bonded dentin, J Dent Res 2003; 82: 537-541.

    Craig RG. Restorative dental materials, ed 11. St. Louis: Mosby 2001.

    Eick JD, Robinson SJ, et al. Adhesives and nonshrinking dental resins of the future, Quintessence Int 1993; 24: 632-640.

    Levailoj C, Cochran MA, , et al. Microleakage of posterior packable resin composite with and without flawable liners, Oper Dent 2001; 26: 302-307.

    Tjan AHL, Glancy JF. Effects of four lubricants used during increment insertion of two types of visible light-activated composites. J Prosthet Dent 1988; 60: 189-194.

    Craig RG: Chemistry, composition, and properties of composite resins, Dent Clin North Am 1981; 25: 219. Heymann Ho, et al. Examination tooth flexure effects on cervical restorations: a two-year clinical study. J Am Dent Assoc 1991; 122: 44-47.

    Degrange M, Roulet JF. Minimally Invasive Restorations with bonding. Chicago: Quintessence

    Bouschlicher MR, Reinhardt JW, et al. Surface treatment techniques for resin composite repair, Am J Dent 1997; 10: 279-283.

    Van Meerbeek B, Peumans M, et al. Clinical status of ten dentin adhesive systems. J Dent Res 1994; 73: 1690-1702.

    Gaengler P. Hayer I, et al. Micromorphological evaluation of posterior composite restorations-a 10-year report. J Oral Rehabil 2004; 31: 991-1000.

    Van Meerbeek B, Vargas M, et al. Adhesives and cements to promote preservation dentistry, Oper Dent 2001; Suppl 6: 119-144. Brannstrom M, et al. Movement of dentinal and pulpal fluid caused by clinical procedures, J Dent Res 47; 1968: 679-682.

    Terkla LG, et al. Testing sealing properties of restorative materials against moist dentin, J Dent Res 1987; 66: 1758-1764.

    Pashley DH. Dentin: a dynamic substrate - a review, scanning microsc 1989; 3: 161-176. Marchetti C, et al. Morphometric computerized analysis on the dentinal tubules and the collagen fibers in the dentin of human permanent teeth, Bull Group Int Rech Sci Stomatol Odontol 1992; 35: 125-129.

    Tao L, et al. Pulpal pressure and bond strengths of super bond and Gluma, Am J Dent 1991; 4: 73-76.

    Pashley DH, et al. Regional resistances to fluid flow in human dentin in vitro, Arch Oral Biol 1987; 23: 807-810. Sepetcioglu F, Ataman BA. Long-term monitoring of microleakage of cavity varnish and adhesive resin with amalgam, J Prosthet Dent 1998; 79: 136-139.

    Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, et al. Microtensile bond strengths of an etch & rinse and self-etch adhesive to enamel and dentin as a function of surface treatment, Oper Dent 2003; 28: 647-660.

    Van Meerbeek B, Conn LJ, et al. Correlative transmission electron microscopy examination of nondemineralized and demineralized resin-dentin interfaces formed by two dentin adhesive systems, J Dent Res 1996; 75: 879-888.

    Sano H, Yoshiyama M, et al. Comparative SEM and TEM observations of nanoleakage with in the hybrid layer, Oper Dent 1995; 20: 160-167.

    Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y, et al. A TEM study of two water-based adhesive systems bonded to dry and wet dentin, J Dent Res 1998; 77: 50-59.

    Perdigao J, Ramos CJ, et al. In vitro interfacial relationship between human dentin and one-bottle dental adhesives, Dent Mater 1997; 13: 218-227.

    Labella R, Van Meerbeek B, et al.   Marginal gap distribution of two-step versus three-step adhesive systems, Trans Acad Dent Mat 1998; 12: 237.

    Blunck V, Roulet J-F. Effect of one-bottle adhesives on the marginal adaptation of composite resins and compomers in class V cavities in vitro, J Dent Res 1998; 77: 910.

    Inoue S, Vargas MA, et al. Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to dentin, J Adhes Dent 2001; 3: 237-245.

    Tay FR, Pashley DH. Have dentin adhesives become too hydrolytic. J Can Dent Assoc 2003; 69: 726-731.

    Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y, et al. Bonding mechanism and micro-tensile bond strength of a 4-MET based self-etching adhesive, J Dent Res 2000; 76 (Special issue).

    De Munck J, Vargas M, et al. One-day bonding effectiveness of new self-etch adhesives to bur-cut enamel and dentin, Oper Dent 2005; 30: 39-49.

    Inoue S, Vargas MA, et al. Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to enamel, Am J Dent 2003; 16: 329-334. Yoshida Y, Nagakane K, et al. Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers, J Dent Res 2004; 83: 454-458.

    Sano H, Yoshikawa T, et al. Long-term durability of dentin bonds made with a self-etching primer, J Dent Res 1999; 78: 906-911.

    Fritz VB. Finger WJ. Bonding efficiency of single bottle enamel/dentin adhesives. Am J Dent 1999; 12: 277-282.

    Tay FR, Pashley DH, et al. Two modes of nanoleakage expression in single-step adhesives, J Dent Res 2002; 81: 472-476.

    Van Landuyt K, De Munck J, et al.

Laboratory comparison of different microleakage evaluation methods in class five composite resin restorations