Microleakage and Resin-to-Dentin Interface Morphology of Pre-Etching versus Self-Etching Adhesive Systems

The purpose of this study was to compare the microleakage and tissue-adhesive interface morphology from Class V restorations using different systems of dentin adhesives. Class V cavities were prepared on buccal surfaces of 27 extracted caries-free molars and premolars. Teeth were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) Prime & Bond NT, a 5th generation system using an initial step of total etch followed by a second step of application of a self bonding primer (2) Clearfil SE Bond, a 5th generation adhesive system employing two separate steps of self-etch priming and subsequent bonding (3) One-up Bond F, a 6th generation one step self-etching, self-priming and self-bonding adhesive. Microleakage and interface morphology of teeth restored with these adhesives and a composite resin were evaluated. Kruskal-Wallis Test (p = 0.05) was used to analyze the results. SEM analysis was used to relate interface morphology to microleakage. The mean and (SD) values of microleakage were: Prime and Bond NT: 0.15 (0.33), Clearfil SE Bond: 0.06 (0.17) and One-up Bond F: 2.96 (0.63). The mean microleakage for One-up Bond was significantly higher than for the other groups (p<0.05). Protruding tags in dentin channels were observed in Prime and Bond and Clearfil systems, but not in One-up Bond. The single step adhesive system, although more convenient for the clinician, uses a low viscosity formulation difficult to keep in place on cavity walls. It also tends to be too aggressive and hydrophilic to create an impermeable hybridized tissue-adhesive interfacial layer resistant to microleakage. Two-step adhesive systems, on the other hand, were retained on all segments of the cavosurface during application, and formed a hybridized interfacial layer resistant to microleakage

Two years survival rate of class II composite resin restorations prepared by ART with and without a chemomechanical caries removal gel in primary molars

The aim was to test the null hypotheses that there is no difference: (1) in carious lesion development at the restoration margin between class II composite resin restorations in primary molars produced through the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) with and without a chemomechanical caries removal gel and (2) in the survival rate of class II composite resin restorations between two treatment groups after 2 years. Three hundred twenty-seven children with 568 class II cavitated lesions were included in a parallel mouth study design. Four operators placed resin composite (Filtek Z 250) restorations bonded with a self-etch adhesive (Adper prompt L pop). Two independent examiners evaluated the restorations after 0.5, 1, and 2 years using the modified Ryge criteria. The Kaplan–Meier survival method was applied to estimate survival percentages. A high proportion of restorations were lost during the study period. Therefore, the first hypothesis could not be tested. No statistically significant difference was observed between the cumulative survival percentages of restorations produced by the two treatment approaches over the 2-year period (ART, 54.1 ± 3.4%; ART with Carisolv™, 46.0 ± 3.4%). This hypothesis was accepted. ART with chemomechanical gel might not provide an added benefit increasing the survival percentages of ART class II composite resin restorations in primary teeth