Evaluation of Enamel and Dentinal Microleakage in Class II Silorane-Based and Methacrylate-Based Resin Composite Restorations Using Specific and Nonspecific Adhesives.
| Autor: | Mousavinasab SM; Professor, Dental Materials Research Center, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran., Ghasemi M; Assistant Professor, Dental Materials Research Center, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran., Yadollahi M; Assistant Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran. |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Zdroj: | Journal of dentistry (Tehran, Iran) [J Dent (Tehran)] 2018 Jul; Vol. 15 (4), pp. 240-249. |
| Abstrakt: | Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate enamel and dentinal microleakage in Class II cavities restored with silorane- and methacrylate-based resin composites using specific and nonspecific adhesives. Materials and Methods: Thirty-six caries-free human premolars were used. Two Class II cavities were prepared on each tooth. The gingival floor was set at 1 mm above (on the mesial surface) and at 1 mm below (on the distal surface) the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). The samples were randomly divided into four groups, and the cavities were restored with a methacrylate-based composite (Filtek ™ P60) and a silorane-based composite (Filtek ™ P90) with specific and nonspecific adhesives. Microleakage was tested using a standardized dye penetration method. All samples were examined under a stereomicroscope, and microleakage scores were statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney-U tests. One sample from each group was examined under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to determine the bonding area. Results: No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of the enamel microleakage (P=0.086). There was a significant difference between the groups with regard to dentinal microleakage (P=0.003). No significant reduction in microleakage was observed in groups restored with Filtek ™ P90 composite using its specific adhesive compared to those restored with Filtek ™ P60 composite using its specific adhesive (P=0.626). Conclusions: The results indicated that the application of methacrylate- and silorane-based composites with specific or nonspecific adhesives had no impact on enamel microleakage, but it affected dentinal microleakage, and specific adhesives showed less microleakage. It seems that a phosphate-methacrylate-based intermediate resin is required to bond dimethacrylate adhesive to silorane-based composites. |
| Databáze: | MEDLINE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|