A comparison of microleakages of five different recent bonding agents/systems in enamel and dentine.
This study compared the microleakages in enamel and dentine of newly developed bonding systems from different manufacturers. Fifteen or more extracted non-carious human premolars were used for each dental material system. The bonding systems were used with their respective composites. Cylindrical cavities were prepared in enamel (scored as a separate entity 0-3) and cementum/dentine (scored 0-4) on the buccal surface at the cemento-enamel junction and restored. The specimens were thermocycled, cut into slices and the depth of dye penetration scored. For enamel, the microleakage values of Clearfil Protect Bond (CPB; median = 1.0) and Xeno III (2.3) did not differ statistically (p > 0.05, Chi-square test), while the microleakage of CPB (1.0) was significantly better than that of GC Unifil Bond (GC; 3.0), Prime & Bond XP (P & B; 3.0) and Adper Prompt L-Pop (APL; 3.0), p < 0.05. At the cementum/dentine side significantly (p < 0.05) more microleakage for CPB (2.0) was found than for GC (0.0), P&B (0.5), APL (0.5), and Xeno III (0.5).


CONCLUSIONS
Enamel was most effectively sealed by CPB and cementum/dentine by GC, P&B, APL and Xeno III. The chemical composition perse did not seem to determine the amount and location of microleakage.
Rossouw
R J
RJ
Oral and Dental Research Institute, Faculty of Dentistry, University of the Western Cape, Private Bag X1, Tygerberg, 7505, Republic of South Africa.
Grobler
S R
SR
Theunis
J
J
Kotze
W
W
D000180:Acrylic Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D001840:Dental Bonding / Q000379:methods*; D003763:Dental Leakage; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents / Q000737:chemistry*; D006801:Humans; D011140:Polyurethanes / Q000737:chemistry; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric
D000180:Acrylic Resins; C029012:Composite Dental Resin; D003188:Composite Resins; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D011140:Polyurethanes