Comparison of Microleakage of Polyacid Modified Composite Resin and Nanofiller Composite Resin

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the microleakage of a compomer and a nanofiller composite resin applied to Class V cavities with two new self-etching adhesive systems. Twenty human third molars were used in this study. Standardized Class V cavities were prepared on buccal and lingual surfaces of each teeth with margins 1 mm below the cemento-enamel junction. Xeno III was applied to ten teeth and Clearfil Protect Bond to ten teeth according to manufacturer’s instructions. Buccal cavities were restored with Dyract eXtra and linguals with Filtek Supreme. The teeth were finished, thermocycled and evaluated for leakage using 0.5% basic fuchsin dye. Dye penetration at enamel and gingival margins were evaluated at x30 magnifications with a stereomicroscope. The results were statistically analyzed using Friedman, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks and Mann Whitney U tests. The teeth restored with Dyract eXtra and Clearfil Protect Bond revealed higher leakage at occlusal margins p0.05 . When adhesive systems’ occlusal and gingival scores were compared separately, the difference between the adhesives was found unsignificant p>0.05 . As a conclusion, none of the restorative materials and adhesive systems tested could completely eliminate the microleakage at occlusal and gingival margins of Class V restorations.

Keywords

• Self-etching adhesive, microleakage, resin composite, polyacid modified composite resin

POLİASİT MODİFİYE KOMPOZİT REZİN İLE NANO DOLDURUCULU BİR KOMPOZİT REZİNİN KENAR SIZINTILARININ KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Abstract

Bu çal›şman›n amac›, iki yeni "self-etching" adeziv sistem ile S›n›f V kavitelere uygulanan bir kompomer ile nanodolduruculu bir rezin kompoziti kenar s›z›nt›s› aç›s›ndan karş›laşt›rmakt›r. Çal›şmada yirmi adet 3. molar insan dişi kullan›ld›. Her dişin bukkal ve lingual yüzeylerine mine-sement s›n›r›ndan 1 mm aşağ›da olacak şekilde standardize edilmiş S›n›f V kaviteler haz›rland›. On dişe Xeno III, on dişe de Clearfil Protect Bond üretici firmalar›n tavsiyelerine göre uyguland›. Haz›rlanan bukkal kaviteler Dyract eXtra, lingual kaviteler ise Filtek Supreme ile restore edildi. Restorasyonlar uygun şekilde bitirildi, termal siklusa tabi tutuldu ve mikros›z›nt›lar› %0.5’lik bazik fuksin boyas›yla, mine ve sement kenar›ndan x30 büyütmede stereomikroskop ile değerlendirildi. Sonuçlar Friedman, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks ve Mann Whitney U testleri ile istatistiksel olarak değerlendirildi. Dyract eXtra ve Clearfil Protect Bond adeziv sistemi ile restore edilen dişlerin okluzal marjinlerinde daha fazla s›z›nt› gözlendi p0.05 . Adeziv sistemlerin okluzal ve gingival skorlar› ayr› ayr› karş›laşt›r›ld›ğ›nda, adezivler aras› fark anlams›z bulundu p>0.05 . Araşt›rman›n sonucunda, test ettiğimiz restoratif materyallerin ve adeziv sistemlerin hiçbiri S›n›f V restorasyonlar›n okluzal ve gingival marjinlerinde kenar s›z›nt›s›n› tamamen engelleyemedi.

Keywords

• "Self-etching" adeziv,mikrosızıntı, kompozit rezin, poliasit modifiye kompozit rezin

References

1. Blunck U. Improving cervical restorations: a review of materials and techniques. J Adhes Dent 2001; 3: 33-44.
2. McLean JW, Nicholson JW, Wilson AD. Proposed nomenclature for glass-ionomer dental cements and related materials. Quintessence Int 1994; 25: 587-9.
3. Hickel R, Dasch W, Janda R, Tyas M, Anusavice K. New direct restorative materials. FDI commission project. Int Dent J 1998; 48: 3-16.
4. Dyract Technical Manual & Literature Folder. Dentsply DeTrey GMBH 1996.
5. Uno S, Finger WJ, Fritz U. Long-term mechanical characteristics of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. Dent Mater 1996; 12: 64-9.
6. Braem MJ, Lambrechts P, Gladys S, Vanherle G. In vitro fatigue behaviour of restorative composites and glass ionomers. Dent Mater 1995; 11: 137-41.
7. Hickel R. Moderne füllüngswerkstoffe. Dtsch Zahnärzt Z 1997; 52: 572-85.
8. Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An appli- cation of nanotechnology in advanced dental mate- rials. JADA 2003; 134: 1382-90.

9. Yap AU, Tan CH, Chung SM. Wear beha- viour of new composite restoratives. Oper Dent 2004; 29: 269-74.
10. Mehl A, Hickel R, Kunzelmann KH. Physical properties and gap formation of light-cured composites with without ‘softstart polimerization’. J Dent 1997; 25: 321-30.
11. Swift EJ Jr, Perdigao J, Heymann HO. Bonding to enamel and dentin: a brief history and state of the art. Quintessence Int 1995; 26: 95-110.
12. Kugel G, Ferrari M. The science of bon- ding: from first to sixth generations. JADA 2000; 131: 20-5.
13. Haller B. Recent developments in dentin bonding. Am J Dent 2000; 13: 44-50.
14. Özdamar K. SPSS ile biyoistatistik. Eskişehir: Kaan Kitabevi, 2003, sayfa 396-418.
15. Türkün LŞ, Ergücü Z. Estetik restoratif materyallerin mikrosızıntı çalışmalarında kullanılan gereç ve yöntemlerin karşılaştırılması. GÜ Dişhek Fak Derg 2004; 21: 143-51.
16. Hilton TJ. Can modern restorative proce- dures and materials reliably seal cavities? in vitro observations. Trans Acad Dent Mater 1998; 12: 21- 71.
17. Pashley DH, Carvalho RM. Dentin per- meability and dentin adhesion. J Dent 1997; 25: 355- 72.
18. Dayangaç B. Kompozit rezin restoras- yonlar. Ankara: Öncü Basımevi, 2000, Sayfa 19- 87.
19. De Magalhäes CS, Serra MC, Rodrigues Junior AL. Volumetric microleakage assessment of glass-ionomer-resin composite hybrid materials. Quintessence Int 1999; 30: 117-21.
20. Garcia-Godoy F, Rodriguez M, Barberia E. Dentin bond strength of fluoride-releasing materials. Am J Dent 1996; 9: 80-2.
21. Brackett WW, Dib A, Brackett MG, Reyes AA, Estrada BE. Two-year clinical performance of class V resin-modified glass ionomer and resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2003; 28: 477- 81.
22. Folwaczny M, Loher C, Mehl A, Kunzelmann KH, Hinkel R. Tooth-colored filling materials for the restoration of cervical lesions: A 24-month follow-up study. Oper Dent 2000; 25: 251- 8.
23. Yap AU, Lim CC, Neo JC. Marginal se- aling ability of three cervical restorative systems. Quintessence Int 1995; 26: 817-20.
24. Schuh H, Richter R, Watts DC. Shear bond strength of a compomer adhesive system to hard den- tal tissues. J Dent Res 1997; 76: 314. Abstract No.2401.
25. Barnes DM, Blank LW, Gingell JC, Gilner PP. A clinical evaluation of a resin-modified. glass ionomer restorative material. JADA 1995; 126: 1245-53.
26. Bowen RL, Cobb EN, Rapson JE. Adhesive bonding of various materials to hard tooth tissues: improvement in bond strength to dentin. J Dent Res 1982; 61: 1070-76.
27. Watanabe I, Nakabayashi N, Pashley DH. Bonding to ground dentin by a phenyl-P self-etching primer. J Dent Res 1994; 73: 1212-20.
28. Imazato S, Kinomoto Y, Tarumi H, Torii M, Russell RR, McCabe JF. Incorporation of antibacterial monomer MDPB in dentin primer. J Dent Res 1997; 76: 768-72.
29. Tate WH, You C, Powers JM. Bond strength of compomers to human enamel. Oper Dent 2000; 25: 283-91.
30. Chersoni S, Lorenzi R, Ferrieri P, Prati C. Laboratory evaluation of compomers in class V restorations. Am J Dent 1997; 3: 147-51.
31. Toledano M, Osorio E, Osorio R, Garcia- Godey F. Microleakage of class V resin modified glass ionomer and compomer restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81: 610-5.
32. Cortes O, Garcia C, Perez L, Bravo LA. A comparison of the bond strength to enamel and dentin of two compomers: an in vitro study. ASDC J Dent Child 1998; 65: 29-31.
33. Ferrari M, Vichi A, Mannocci F, Davidson CL. Sealing ability of two "compomers" applied with and without phosphoric acid treatment for class V restorations in vivo. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 79: 131- 5.
34. Abate PF, Bertacchini SM, Polack MA, Macchi RL. Adhesion of a compomer to dental struc- tures. Quintessence Int 1997; 28: 509-12.
35. Moodley D, Grobler SR, Rossouw RJ, Oberholzer TG, Patel N. In vitro evaluation of two adhesive systems used with compomer filling mate- rials. Int Dent J 2000; 50: 400-6.
36. Inoue S, Van Meerbeek B, Vargas M, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. "Adhesion mechanism of self-etching adhesives" in advanced adhesive dentistry 3rd International Kuraray Symposium 3-4 Dec 1999, Como Italy, Kuraray Co. Ltd., p. 131-48.