Long-term microleakage trends in access cavities conditioned with phosphoric acid and deproteinizing agent for root-canal-treated teeth: an investigation of fluid filtration and microscopy analysis

This study evaluated the long-term microleakage of access cavities conditioned with phosphoric acid and deproteinizing agents for root-canal-treated teeth using fluid filtration and microscopical analysis. Occlusal surfaces of extracted human mandibular premolars (N = 90) were removed leaving a 4 mm coronal length from the cemento-enamel junction. After root canal treatment, the specimens were randomly divided into four experimental groups (n = 21) and the remaining teeth were used for positive control group (n = 6): SB: 35% H₃PO₄ + Adper Single Bond 2; SSB: 35% H₃PO₄ + 5.25% NaOCl + 10% Sodium ascorbate (C₆H₇NaO₆) + Adper Single Bond 2; XP: 35% H₃PO₄₊XP Bond; SXP: 35% H₃PO₄₊5.25% NaOCl + 10% Sodium ascorbate + XP Bond. All cavities were restored with a resin composite (Filtek Z250). After removing the root filling from the apical side, teeth were subjected to fluid filtration test for 1 week, 6 and 12 months followed by ×2500 thermocycling after 1st week and 6th months each. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Dunnet T3 tests (α = 0.05). SEM analyses were carried out after each microleakage evaluation in two random teeth from all groups. Microleakage values in groups SB and XP presented no significant difference in any of the evaluated period (p > 0.05). Microleakage results of SXP (0.01665) group showed significant difference compared to XP (0.03377) and SB (0.03049) groups after 12 months. SSB group (0.00901) showed significantly less microleakage among all other groups (0.01665–0.03377) (p < 0.05). Prior to endodontic treatment, in access cavities, acid etching with 35% H₃PO₄ followed by the application of NaOCl and sodium ascorbate completely destroyed the collagen layer, reducing the microleakage and resin–dentin interface degradation up to 12 months.     

Effect of desensitizers on the microleakage of previously restored Class V resin composite restorations

Objectives: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of different desensitizers’ application on the microleakage of previously restored Class V composite resin restorations.

Materials and methods: Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces of 40 extracted human third molars. Forty box-shaped cavities were divided into four groups, based on the desensitizers used (n = 10). All teeth were restored with the same bonding agent and composite material. No desensitizer was applied in the control group. In the experimental groups, BisBlock, Gluma and Universal bonding agents were the desensitizers. The desensitizers were applied after completion of composite restorations according to manufacturers’ instructions. All specimens were then thermocycled at 5–55 °C, with a 10-s dwell time for 500 cycles. The samples were then immersed in 0.5% methylene blue dye for 24 h, sectioned into two equal halves, evaluated for microleakage using a stereomicroscope at 30× magnification and scored on a scale of 0–3. The data were analysed using the Kruskal–Wallis test at the significance level p < 0.05.

Results: There were no significant differences in microleakage after desensitizer application (p > 0.05). However, based on the obtained numerical values in our study, while the BisBlock and bonding groups showed lower microleakage at the occlusal margin, BisBlock, Gluma and bonding group showed lower microleakage at the gingival margin compared to the control group.

Conclusions: The application of desensitizers as a post-treatment option could be considered an advisable procedure to minimize microleakage.     

Effect of Different Restorative Materials on Microleakage of Ozone Gas and Traditional Cavity Disinfectant Applied Teeth

The aim of this in vitro study is to investigate the effects of ozone and conventional cavity disinfectant on microleakage at the cavities which are restorated with different restorative materials. Ninety human molar teeth were used in this study. Black V cavities are prepared on buccal surfaces of teeth. Teeth are divided to 3 groups which contains 30 teeth. Group 1: ozone applied; Group 2: 2% chlorhexidine applied; Group 3: any disinfectant is not applied. And then all groups are divided to three subgroups. All subgroups are restored with silorane, ormocer, and traditional composite according to the manufacturer’s directions. Sections were examined under a microscope. Occlusal and gingival microleakage values by a separate researcher and scores were recorded. Statistically results were reviewed with ANOVA and Kruskal–Wallis Tests. Statistically significant difference of microleakage between cavity disinfectant and control groups’ occlusal and gingival lines was not found (p > 0.05). There was no differences at occlusal lines of composite subgroups (p > 0.05) but also significant difference at gingival lines was found (p < 0.05). Statistically significant difference was found among the composite materials, between chlorhexidine and control groups’ gingival lines. The most successful results at gingival lines were found with silorane.     

Comparison of total‐etch,self‐etch,and selective etching techniques on class V composite restorations prepared by Er:YAG laser and bur: a scanning electron microscopy study

The purpose of this study was to compare total‐etch, self‐etch, and selective etching techniques on the marginal microleakage of Class V composite restorations prepared by Er:YAG laser and bur. Class V cavities prepared on both buccal and lingual surfaces of 30 premolars by Er:YAG laser or bur and divided into six groups. The occlusal margins were in enamel, and the cervical margins were in cementum. Group‐1: bur preparation(bp)+Adper Single Bond 2 (ASB)+Filtek Z550 (FZ); Group‐2: laser preparation(lp)+(ASB)+(FZ); Group‐3: bp + Clearfil S3 Bond Plus (CSBP)+(FZ); Group‐4: lp+(CSBP) (FZ); Group‐5: bp + acid etching+(CSBP)+(FZ); Group‐6: lp + acid etching+(CSBP)+(FZ). All teeth were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hr, and then thermocycled 1000 times (5–55°C). Five teeth from each group were chosen for the microleakage investigation, and two teeth for the scanning electron microscope evaluation. Teeth which were prepared for the microleakage test were immersed in .5% methylene blue dye for 24 hr. After immersion, the teeth were sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope for dye penetration. Data were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests (p < .05). More microleakage was observed in the cervical regions compared to the occlusal regions in Groups 3, 5, and 6, respectively (p < .05). There is no statistically significant difference in Groups 1, 2, and 4, in terms of cervical regions versus occlusal regions (p > .05). No significant differences were observed among any groups in terms of occlusal and cervical surfaces, separately (p > .05). Different etching techniques did not influence microleakage of Class V restorations prepared by Er:YAG laser and bur.     

Microleakage in class V cavities prepared using conventional method versus Er:YAG laser restored with glass ionomer cement or resin composite

This study evaluated the effect of tooth preparation method (diamond bur vs. Er:YAG laser) on the microleakage levels of glass ionomers and resin composite. Human permanent premolars (N = 80) were randomly divided into two groups (n = 40). Cavities on half of the teeth were prepared using diamond bur for enamel and carbide bur for dentin and the other half using Er:YAG laser. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups according to the restoration materials, namely (a) ChemFil Rock (CFR), (b) IonoluxAC (IAC), (c) EQUIA system (EQA) and one resin composite (d) AeliteLS (ALS) (n = 10 per group). Microleakage (μm) was assessed at the occlusal and gingival margins after dye penetration (0.5% basic fuchsine for 24 h). On the occlusal aspect, while the cavity preparation types significantly affected the microleakage for CFR (p = 0.015), IAC (p = 0.001) glass ionomer restorations, it did not show significant effect for glass ionomer EQA (p = 0.09) and resin composite ALS (p = 0.2). Er:YAG laser presented less microleakage compared to bur preparation in all groups except for EQA. On the gingival aspect, microleakage decreased significantly for CFR (p = 0.02), IAC (p = 0.001), except for EQA where significant increase was observed (p = 0.001) with the use of Er:YAG laser. Microleakage decrease was not significant at the gingival region between diamond bur and Er:YAG laser for ALS (p = 0.663). At the occlusal and gingival sites in all groups within each preparation method, microleakage level was not significant.     

Comparison of microleakage of a multi-mode adhesive system with contemporary adhesives in class II resin restorations

Aim: The aim was to compare the microleakage of resin composite bonded with different adhesive systems in class-II cavities at enamel or dentine margins. Material and methods: 60 extracted human molar teeth received slot cavity preparations on mesial and distal surfaces (mesial cervical margin was prepared in enamel and distal in dentine). They were randomly divided into five groups (n?=?12) according to the adhesive system: Group-A: Silorane Bond (S), Group-B: Adper Single Bond 2 (SB), Group-C: Clearfil SE Bond (CSE), Group-D: Single Bond Universal (USel) (selective etch-and-rinse), Group-E: Single Bond Universal (USE) (all-in-one). The preparations were restored using the same resin composite (Filtek Ultimate) except Group A which was restored by Silorane composite. The teeth were thermocycled, immersed in dye, sectioned, and dye penetration was evaluated quantitatively using image analysis. The data were analyzed using the two-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni test. Results: In all groups, there was no statistically significant difference between enamel margins at occlusal and gingival sites (p?>?0.05). The statistical difference between Group-A (S) and Group-B (SB) was significant at all margins. Group-B (SB) presented the greatest microleakage amounts at all margins and the highest scores were obtained in the dentine. Likewise, SB demonstrated statistically significant differences between dentine and enamel margins (occlusal and gingival)(p?<?0.05). Conclusion: All adhesive systems showed similar microleakage values between enamel margins in occlusal and gingival regions. However, when the gingival margin is located in the dentine, etch&rinse adhesive systems may not be a choice in terms of microleakage prevention.     

MTA用于修复不同厚度根分叉穿孔封闭性的体外实验

目的：在研究离体情况下使用染色萃取法研究MTA修复不同厚度根分叉穿孔的封闭效果。方法：将60颗人恒磨牙随机分为3组,每组20颗。每组分别预备其髓底使根分叉剩余厚度分别为3mm,2mm,1mm。3个实验组均人工制备根分叉穿孔,每组中15颗牙使用MTA修复底穿孔,5颗作为阳性对照。另5颗牙未制备根分叉穿孔作为阴性对照。使用HIDEX酶标仪在550nm检测96孔板的吸光度评价其渗漏性。结果：3组间染料吸光度均有统计学差异（p〈0．01）．有较厚根分叉的渗漏低于较薄根分叉。根分叉最薄的～组（1mm）渗漏最明显。结论：剩余牙本质壁厚度对MTA修复根分叉穿孔的封闭性有影响。在直接使用MTA修复较薄根分叉穿孔（〈1mm）时,应充分考虑其预后效果。     

Resin-tooth interfacial morphology and sealing ability of one-step self-etch adhesives: microleakage and SEM study

OBJECTIVES: To compare microleakage of three self‐etch adhesives and to analyze enamel surface morphology and interfacial morphology of resin–enamel and resin–dentin interface under scanning electron microscope (SEM). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Study was conducted in 65 extracted human premolars. Class V cavities were prepared in 45 teeth and assigned to three groups (n = 15) according to three self‐etch adhesives (OptiBond All‐in‐One, iBond, and Adper Prompt L‐Pop). After restoration, 10 samples from each group were used to assess microleakage at enamel and dentin margin. Five samples from each group were used for analysis of interfacial morphology at resin–enamel and resin–dentin interface under SEM. Remaining 20 teeth were used to prepare flat enamel buccal surfaces to analyze the difference in surface morphology after treatment with three adhesives (n = 5 each) and 36% phosphoric acid treatment (n = 5). PRINCIPAL OBSERVATIONS: At enamel margin, Prompt L‐Pop depicted least leakage of all the three adhesives and also showed best interfacial adaptation under SEM. At dentin margin, OptiBond All‐in‐One showed significant less leakage than iBond and Prompt L‐Pop. On flat enamel surface, phosphoric acid produced the most retentive etching pattern when compared with the three adhesives. CONCLUSION: Prompt L‐Pop showed the best bonding effectiveness in enamel, whereas OptiBond All‐in‐One performed significantly better in dentin. Microsc. Res. Tech. 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Does laser etching have an effect on application mode of a universal adhesive?—A microleakage and scanning electron microscopy evaluation

This study aimed to evaluate the microleakage of a universal adhesive's different application modes incorporated with Er,Cr:YSGG laser on Class V resin composite restorations. Sound human molar teeth (n = 30) were used for microleakage evaluations. Specimens with 60 standardized Class V cavities were divided into five groups according to the adhesive modes of universal adhesive, Adhese Universal (n = 12). Group 1‐etch‐and‐rinse mode with phosphoric acid; Group 2‐etch‐and‐rinse mode with Er,Cr:YSGG laser; Group 3‐selective‐etch mode with phosphoric acid; Group 4‐selective‐etch mode with Er,Cr:YSGG laser; Group 5‐self‐etch. After restorations were performed with a resin composite, Tetric N‐Ceram, the specimens were polished and subjected to thermocycling (10,000X). Following immersion in 0.5% basic fuschin for a day, the teeth were sectioned and the degree of microleakage was determined along the tooth‐resin composite interface using a light microscopy(40X). Five specimens from each group were examined by scanning electron microscopy. The Kruskal–Wallis, Siegel Castello, and Wilcoxon tests were used for statistical analyses (α = .05). At the enamel margins, significant differences were obtained among the groups (p < .05). Significantly higher microleakage scores were detected in Group 5 in comparison with Groups 1, 2, and 3. There were no significant differences between different adhesive strategies at the dentin margins (p > .05). While analyzing enamel and dentin microleakage scores, no statistically significant differences were observed in Groups 4 and 5 (p > .05). The laser application time and the adhesive modes of universal adhesives could affect the microleakage at the enamel margins. Different adhesive modes of universal adhesives combined with laser etching had no influence on the microleakage scores of dentin margins.