Influence of cavity configuration on microleakage around Class V restorations bonded with seven self-etching adhesives.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate microleakage around Class V resin composite restorations with different cavity configurations, bonded with one of seven self-etching materials or with an adhesive using the total-etch technique.


METHODS
Ninety-six human molars and premolars were randomly assigned to eight groups and bonded with one of seven self-etching adhesives--Prompt-L-Pop (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), Adper Prompt-L-Pop (3M ESPE), Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Medical, Okayama, Japan), Prime & Bond NT/NRC (Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany), Xeno III (Dentsply DeTrey), One-Up Bond (Tokuyama Dental, Tokuyama, Japan), AdheSE (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein)-or with Prime & Bond NT (Dentsply DeTrey) using a separate total-etch technique. Cavities were cut in both the lingual and buccal surfaces and were approximately 3 mm mesiodistally, 1.5 mm deep, and 2.0 mm occlusogingivally. Selected at random, box-shaped cavities were cut on one side and V-shaped cavities were cut on the contralateral side. After bonding, the cavities were incrementally filled with a microhybrid composite (Tetric Ceram, Ivoclar Vivadent), cured, and immediately polished with Sof-Lex (3M ESPE) disks. The teeth were thermocycled, and the specimens were examined for microleakage using Procion Brilliant Red (ICI, Slough, UK) as a marker.


RESULTS
Comparisons of both gingival and enamel margins within each of the groups showed no significant difference owing to configuration factor (C-factor; p > .5 in all cases, calculated with Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric analysis of variance [ANOVA]) and Dunn's multiple comparison test). All groups showed microleakage at the gingival margins irrespective of C-factor or bonding agent (box-shaped cavities, p = .8862; V-shaped cavities, p = .9623; using the ANOVA). Microleakage was not observed at all enamel margins regardless of C-factor or bonding agent, and there were no significant differences between the groups (box-shaped cavities, p = .9869; V-shaped cavities, p = .9550; using the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric ANOVA).
Santini
Ario
A
Edinburgh Postgraduate Dental Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. ariosantini@hotmail.com
Ivanovic
Vladimir
V
Ibbetson
Richard
R
Milia
Egle
E
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001641:Bicuspid; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D001840:Dental Bonding; D003731:Dental Caries / Q000628:therapy; D003737:Dental Cavity Preparation / Q000145:classification / Q000379:methods*; D045662:Dental Etching / Q000379:methods*; D003763:Dental Leakage / Q000517:prevention & control*; D018772:Dental Marginal Adaptation; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents / Q000737:chemistry*; D006801:Humans; D066298:In Vitro Techniques; D008963:Molar; D011897:Random Allocation; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric
D003188:Composite Resins; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents