title: Influence of human and bovine substrate on the microleakage of two adhesive systems.
abstract: The aim of this study was to evaluate in vitro the marginal sealing of two adhesive systems and to analyze the influence of human and bovine substrates on marginal microleakage in enamel. Rectangular-shaped class V cavities (4 mm wide x 2 mm high x 2 mm deep) were made as follows: 8 cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of the human teeth with margins located on enamel and 16 cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces of the bovine teeth. The cavities were randomly assigned to 4 groups of 8 cavities according to the adhesive system and substrate: G1--Prime & Bond 2.1 (Dentsply)/human substrate; G2--Adhese (Ivoclar/Vivadent)/human substrate; G3--Prime & Bond 2.1 (Dentsply)/bovine substrate; G4--Adhese (Ivoclar/Vivadent)/bovine substrate. The cavities were filled with microhybrid composite resin (Fillmagic) and after polishing/finishing procedures, the teeth were subjected to a thermocycling regimen of 500 cycles with 1-min immersions in water at 55 degrees+/-2 degrees C and 5 degrees+/-2 degrees C. Next, the teeth were coated with two layers of nail polish to within 1 mm of the margin, submerged in a 50% silver nitrate solution for 2 h, rinsed thoroughly in running tap and immersed in developing solution for 8 h. The restorations were bisected resulting in 16 specimens. Microleakage was observed under a stereomicroscope at x25 and recorded using four-point (0-3) scoring system. The data were analyzed statistically by the Mann Whitney U-test at 5% significance level. Leakage was present in all specimens and there was statistically significant difference between the adhesive systems. Adhese self-etching system showed significantly more leakage in both substrates (human--p= 0.0001 and bovine--p=0.0031). There was no statistically significant difference between human and bovine substrates for either of the adhesive systems based on different bonding mechanisms (Prime & Bond 2.1--p= 0.6923 and Adhese--p= 0.6109). Neither of the adhesive systems was capable to completely prevent microleakage and the self-etching system was more susceptible to microleakage.
authors.affiliation: Department of Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Maranhão, São Luiz, MA, Brazil.
authors.forename: Karoline Guará Brusaca
authors.initials: KG
authors.lastname: Almeida
authors.forename: Kristine Guará Brusaca Almeida
authors.initials: KG
authors.lastname: Scheibe
authors.forename: Ana Emília Figuerêdo
authors.initials: AE
authors.lastname: Oliveira
authors.forename: Cláudia Maria Coêlho
authors.initials: CM
authors.lastname: Alves
authors.forename: José Ferreira
authors.initials: JF
authors.lastname: Costa
mesh_terms: D000096:Acetone; D000180:Acrylic Resins; D000818:Animals; D002417:Cattle; D003188:Composite Resins; D001840:Dental Bonding; D003743:Dental Enamel; D003763:Dental Leakage / Q000517:prevention & control; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods*; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis; D006801:Humans; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids; D019279:Resin Cements
chemical_list: D000180:Acrylic Resins; C489662:AdheSE cement; D003188:Composite Resins; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids; D019279:Resin Cements; C444444:prime and bond 2.1; D000096:Acetone