Microleakage comparison of dentin bonding systems with glass ionomer.
Glass-ionomer cements have been suggested as substitutes for dentin-bonded composites. This investigation was designed to compare microleakage of glass-ionomer restorations with that of dentin-bonded composite restorations. Eighty extracted human molars were used in this study. Class V cavities were prepared on the mesial and distal surfaces of each tooth. The distal cavities were restored with Ketac-Fil Glass Ionomer (ESPE). The mesial cavities were divided into four groups and treated with four different dentin bonding systems: Gluma (Columbus Dental), Tenure (two-part powder system; second version, Den-Mat), Scotchbond 2 (3M), and an experimental ferric oxalate system. The commercial materials were placed according to the manufacturers' instructions. The teeth were then thermocycled 3800 cycles between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C, subjected to silver nitrate staining, and sectioned for microleakage evaluation by three evaluators on a scale of 0 to 4. The ferric oxalate system exhibited significantly less microleakage (median score = 1; Wilcoxon paired testing, p = 0.01) than the glass ionomer (median score = 3). The other dentin bonding systems were similar in microleakage to the glass ionomer (median score = 3).
Chohayeb
A A
AA
Howard University, College of Dentistry, Washington, DC.
D003188:Composite Resins; D001840:Dental Bonding / Q000379:methods*; D003763:Dental Leakage / Q000517:prevention & control*; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods*; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D005976:Glutaral; D006801:Humans; D008298:Maleates; D008689:Methacrylates; D010070:Oxalates; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids; D019279:Resin Cements
D003188:Composite Resins; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D008298:Maleates; D008689:Methacrylates; D010070:Oxalates; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids; D019279:Resin Cements; C067788:scotchbond 2; C074811:Tenure adhesive; C040964:Ketac-Fil; C044372:Gluma; D005976:Glutaral