Cargando…

Comparative evaluation of traditional and self-priming hydrophilic resin

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the microleakage of traditional composite (Charisma/Gluma Comfort Bond) and self-priming resin (Embrace Wetbond). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standardized Class V cavities partly in enamel and cementum were prepared in 20 extracted human premolars. Tee...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Singla, Ruchi, Bogra, Poonam, Singal, Bhawana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3410331/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22876008
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.97944
_version_ 1782239720576647168
author Singla, Ruchi
Bogra, Poonam
Singal, Bhawana
author_facet Singla, Ruchi
Bogra, Poonam
Singal, Bhawana
author_sort Singla, Ruchi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the microleakage of traditional composite (Charisma/Gluma Comfort Bond) and self-priming resin (Embrace Wetbond). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standardized Class V cavities partly in enamel and cementum were prepared in 20 extracted human premolars. Teeth were divided into two groups. Group 1 was restored with Charisma/Gluma Comfort Bond and Group 2 with Embrace Wetbond. The specimens were stored in distilled water at room temperature for 24 h and then subjected to 200 thermocycles at 5°C and 55°C with a 1 min dwell time. After thermocycling teeth were immersed in a 0.2% solution of methylene blue dye for 24 h. Teeth were sectioned vertically approximately midway through the facial and lingual surfaces using a diamond saw blade. Microleakage was evaluated at enamel and cementum surfaces using 10 × stereomicroscope. The statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: Wetbond showed less microleakage at occlusal and gingival margins as compared with Charisma/Gluma Comfort Bond and the results were statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Class V cavities restored with Embrace Wetbond with fewer steps and fewer materials offers greater protection against microleakage at the tooth restorative interface.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3410331
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34103312012-08-08 Comparative evaluation of traditional and self-priming hydrophilic resin Singla, Ruchi Bogra, Poonam Singal, Bhawana J Conserv Dent Original Article BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the microleakage of traditional composite (Charisma/Gluma Comfort Bond) and self-priming resin (Embrace Wetbond). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standardized Class V cavities partly in enamel and cementum were prepared in 20 extracted human premolars. Teeth were divided into two groups. Group 1 was restored with Charisma/Gluma Comfort Bond and Group 2 with Embrace Wetbond. The specimens were stored in distilled water at room temperature for 24 h and then subjected to 200 thermocycles at 5°C and 55°C with a 1 min dwell time. After thermocycling teeth were immersed in a 0.2% solution of methylene blue dye for 24 h. Teeth were sectioned vertically approximately midway through the facial and lingual surfaces using a diamond saw blade. Microleakage was evaluated at enamel and cementum surfaces using 10 × stereomicroscope. The statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: Wetbond showed less microleakage at occlusal and gingival margins as compared with Charisma/Gluma Comfort Bond and the results were statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Class V cavities restored with Embrace Wetbond with fewer steps and fewer materials offers greater protection against microleakage at the tooth restorative interface. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2012 /pmc/articles/PMC3410331/ /pubmed/22876008 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.97944 Text en Copyright: © Journal of Conservative Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Singla, Ruchi
Bogra, Poonam
Singal, Bhawana
Comparative evaluation of traditional and self-priming hydrophilic resin
title Comparative evaluation of traditional and self-priming hydrophilic resin
title_full Comparative evaluation of traditional and self-priming hydrophilic resin
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of traditional and self-priming hydrophilic resin
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of traditional and self-priming hydrophilic resin
title_short Comparative evaluation of traditional and self-priming hydrophilic resin
title_sort comparative evaluation of traditional and self-priming hydrophilic resin
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3410331/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22876008
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.97944
work_keys_str_mv AT singlaruchi comparativeevaluationoftraditionalandselfpriminghydrophilicresin
AT bograpoonam comparativeevaluationoftraditionalandselfpriminghydrophilicresin
AT singalbhawana comparativeevaluationoftraditionalandselfpriminghydrophilicresin