An in-vitro study of microleakage around class V cavities bonded with a self-etching material versus a conventional two-bottle system.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the microleakage around class V restorations restored with either a self-etching adhesive system or a conventional two-bottle adhesive system used with "total etch" technique, and their recommended resin-based composites (RBC).


METHODS
Two types of adhesive systems were used. A self-etching adhesive, Etch and Prime 3.0 (Degussa AG, Hanau, Germany), and a conventional two-bottle adhesive, Gluma Solid Bond (Heraeus Kulzer, Dormagen, Germany). The bonding systems were used in strict accordance with the manufacturers' instructions, except that, with the two-bottle adhesive system, the cavities were filled with either a "wet" or a "dry" bonding technique, subsequent to acid-etching with 20% phosphoric acid. Etch & Prime 3.0 was used in conjunction with Degufill Mineral (Degussa, Hanau, Germany) RBC and Gluma Solid Bond with Flow Line RBC (Heraeus Kulzer, Dormagen, Germany). Standardised bucco-cervical cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 15 extracted maxillary first premolar teeth; all cavity margins were in enamel. Ten of the resulting cavities (Group A) were restored using Etch & Prime 3.0 and Degufill Mineral, ten (Group B) using Gluma Solid Bond (Wet Bond), and ten (Group C) using Gluma Solid Bond (Dry Bond). Leakage scores at occlusal and gingival margins were calculated after thermocycling 500 times between baths, held at 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C, respectively, with 30 seconds dwell time in both. Data were analysed by the Fisher Exact Test.


RESULTS
There was no statistically significant difference between the self-etching adhesive and conventional two-bottle adhesive systems at either the occlusal or the gingival margins. With the self-etching adhesive, there was no statistically significant difference in leakage scores between occlusal and gingival margins. There was a statistically significant difference between the occlusal and the gingival margins when a "wet" or "dry" bonding technique was used with the conventional two-bottle adhesive system.


CONCLUSIONS
The results suggest that the application of a conventional two-bottle bonding system used with a "total etch" technique is better than that of a self-etching adhesive system. With the former, the use of a "wet" bonding does not give better results than a "dry" bonding technique.
Salim
Sinan
S
Edinburgh Postgraduate Dental Institute, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Santini
Ario
A
Husham
Alyaa
A
D000134:Acid Etching, Dental / Q000379:methods; D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D002648:Child; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D001840:Dental Bonding; D003737:Dental Cavity Preparation / Q000145:classification*; D003738:Dental Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D003743:Dental Enamel / Q000648:ultrastructure; D003763:Dental Leakage / Q000145:classification*; D018772:Dental Marginal Adaptation; D003764:Dental Materials / Q000737:chemistry*; D011756:Diphosphates / Q000737:chemistry; D000431:Ethanol / Q000737:chemistry; D005459:Fluorides / Q000737:chemistry; D005976:Glutaral / Q000737:chemistry; D006801:Humans; D008422:Materials Testing; D008689:Methacrylates / Q000737:chemistry; D010756:Phosphoric Acids / Q000737:chemistry; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids / Q000737:chemistry; D013499:Surface Properties
D003188:Composite Resins; C117615:Degufill mineral; D003738:Dental Cements; D003764:Dental Materials; D011756:Diphosphates; C121187:Etch&Prime; D008689:Methacrylates; D010756:Phosphoric Acids; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids; C111840:flowable hybrid composite; D000431:Ethanol; C044372:Gluma; C030242:phosphoric acid; D005459:Fluorides; D005976:Glutaral