Abstract ID#: 104104 Password: 291518 Marginal Microleakage Evaluation in Class V Using Differents Adhesive Systems J.C. GOMES , O.M. GOMES, G.M. GOMES, and A. SÁNCHEZ-AYALA, Ponta Grossa State University, Ponta Grossa, Parana, Brazil Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate, in vitro, the marginal microleakage in class V composite restorations using different adhesives systems. Methods: standard cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 35 human premolars with margins located below the cemento- enamel junction, using different adhesive systems: GI–Adper Single Bond 2 (3M-ESPE); GII–One Coat 7.0 (ColtèneWhaledent); GIII–i Bond (HeraeusKulzer); GIV–Clearfil S3 Bond (Kuraray); GV–Xeno IV (Dentsply); GVI–Optibond all in one (Kerr) and GVII–G Bond (GC). Before finishing and polishing, samples were stored in distilled water at 37ºC for 24 hours. The teeth were termocycled for 500 cycles (5º C±1º C and 55º C±1º C) with a dwell time of 15 seconds and submitted the load cycling applying a force of 40-70N during 50000 cycles, immersed in 50% silver nitrate solution for two hours. The teeth were sectioned buccolingually through each restoration under constant refrigeration and the extension of dye penetration at margins was assessed under optical microscope at X 40 power and photographed, using a 0-3 leakage scoring system. The data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis Test. The significant level used was 5%. Results: Enamel Scores: (mean) GI–0,0; GII-0,4; GIII–0,8; GIV–0,1; GV–0,3; GVI-0,4 and GVII–0,3. Gingival Scores: (mean) GI–0,5; GII-0,1; GIII–0,2; GIV–0,2; GV–0,3; GVI-0,3 and GVII–0,5. In spite of the different leakage degrees, there was not significant difference between enamel and dentin microleakage (p=0.6931), and among the adhesive system in enamel (p=0.2393) and dentin margins (p=0.9221). Conclusion: In the enamel margin, the conventional system GI (control) had the best performance; in the dentin margin, the self-etching systems had better performance than the conventional system and the GII self-etching system had the best performance among all self-etching systems in the dentin-margin.

J.C. GOMES Ponta Grossa State University, Ponta Grossa ... · PDF fileTitle: Microsoft Word - IADR2008_ONECOAT7-0_POSTER_PROF_JOAO CARLOS GOMES_UK.doc Author: misc Created Date: 6/26/2008

Download PDF Report

Upload
lelien
View
212
Download
0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: J.C. GOMES Ponta Grossa State University, Ponta Grossa ... · PDF fileTitle: Microsoft Word - IADR2008_ONECOAT7-0_POSTER_PROF_JOAO CARLOS GOMES_UK.doc Author: misc Created Date: 6/26/2008

Abstract ID#: 104104 Password: 291518

Marginal Microleakage Evaluation in Class V Using Differents Adhesive Systems

J.C. GOMES, O.M. GOMES, G.M. GOMES, and A. SÁNCHEZ-AYALA, Ponta Grossa State University, Ponta Grossa, Parana, Brazil

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate, in vitro, the marginal microleakage in class V composite restorations using different adhesives systems. Methods: standard cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 35 human premolars with margins located below the cemento-enamel junction, using different adhesive systems: GI–Adper Single Bond 2 (3M-ESPE); GII–One Coat 7.0 (ColtèneWhaledent); GIII–i Bond (HeraeusKulzer); GIV–Clearfil S3 Bond (Kuraray); GV–Xeno IV (Dentsply); GVI–Optibond all in one (Kerr) and GVII–G Bond (GC). Before finishing and polishing, samples were stored in distilled water at 37ºC for 24 hours. The teeth were termocycled for 500 cycles (5º C±1º C and 55º C±1º C) with a dwell time of 15 seconds and submitted the load cycling applying a force of 40-70N during 50000 cycles, immersed in 50% silver nitrate solution for two hours. The teeth were sectioned buccolingually through each restoration under constant refrigeration and the extension of dye penetration at margins was assessed under optical microscope at X 40 power and photographed, using a 0-3 leakage scoring system. The data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis Test. The significant level used was 5%. Results: Enamel Scores: (mean) GI–0,0; GII-0,4; GIII–0,8; GIV–0,1; GV–0,3; GVI-0,4 and GVII–0,3. Gingival Scores: (mean) GI–0,5; GII-0,1; GIII–0,2; GIV–0,2; GV–0,3; GVI-0,3 and GVII–0,5. In spite of the different leakage degrees, there was not significant difference between enamel and dentin microleakage (p=0.6931), and among the adhesive system in enamel (p=0.2393) and dentin margins (p=0.9221). Conclusion: In the enamel margin, the conventional system GI (control) had the best performance; in the dentin margin, the self-etching systems had better performance than the conventional system and the GII self-etching system had the best performance among all self-etching systems in the dentin-margin.