Cargando…

Resin composite repair: Quantitative microleakage evaluation of resin-resin and resin-tooth interfaces with different surface treatments

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the effect of different adhesive systems and surface treatments on the integrity of resin-resin and resin-tooth interfaces after partial removal of preexisting resin composites using quantitative image analysis for microleakage testing protocol. MATERIALS AND METHO...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Celik, Cigdem, Cehreli, Sevi Burcak, Arhun, Neslihan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4319307/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25713491
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.149652
_version_ 1782355943907917824
author Celik, Cigdem
Cehreli, Sevi Burcak
Arhun, Neslihan
author_facet Celik, Cigdem
Cehreli, Sevi Burcak
Arhun, Neslihan
author_sort Celik, Cigdem
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the effect of different adhesive systems and surface treatments on the integrity of resin-resin and resin-tooth interfaces after partial removal of preexisting resin composites using quantitative image analysis for microleakage testing protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 80 human molar teeth were restored with either of the resin composites (Filtek Z250/GrandioSO) occlusally. The teeth were thermocycled (1000×). Mesial and distal 1/3 parts of the restorations were removed out leaving only middle part. One side of the cavity was finished with course diamond bur and the other was air-abraded with 50 μm Al(2)O(3). They were randomly divided into four groups (n = 10) to receive: Group 1: Adper Single Bond 2; Group 2: All Bond 3; Group 3: ClearfilSE; Group 4: BeautiBond, before being repaired with the same resin composite (Filtek Z250). The specimens were re-thermocycled (1000×), sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic fuchsin, sectioned mesiodistally and photographed digitally. The extent of dye penetration was measured by image analysis software (ImageJ) for both bur-finished and air-abraded surfaces at resin-tooth and resin-resin interfaces. The data were analyzed statistically. RESULTS: BeautiBond exhibited the most microleakage at every site. Irrespective of adhesive and initial composite type, air-abrasion showed less microleakage except for BeautiBond. The type of initial repaired restorative material did not affect the microleakage. BeautiBond adhesive may not be preferred in resin composite repair in terms of microleakage prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Surface treatment with air-abrasion produced the lowest microleakage scores, independent of the adhesive systems and the pre-existing resin composite type. Pre-existing composite type does not affect the microleakage issue. All-in-one adhesive resin (BeautiBond) may not be preferred in resin composite repair in terms of microleakage prevention.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4319307
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43193072015-02-24 Resin composite repair: Quantitative microleakage evaluation of resin-resin and resin-tooth interfaces with different surface treatments Celik, Cigdem Cehreli, Sevi Burcak Arhun, Neslihan Eur J Dent Original Article OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the effect of different adhesive systems and surface treatments on the integrity of resin-resin and resin-tooth interfaces after partial removal of preexisting resin composites using quantitative image analysis for microleakage testing protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 80 human molar teeth were restored with either of the resin composites (Filtek Z250/GrandioSO) occlusally. The teeth were thermocycled (1000×). Mesial and distal 1/3 parts of the restorations were removed out leaving only middle part. One side of the cavity was finished with course diamond bur and the other was air-abraded with 50 μm Al(2)O(3). They were randomly divided into four groups (n = 10) to receive: Group 1: Adper Single Bond 2; Group 2: All Bond 3; Group 3: ClearfilSE; Group 4: BeautiBond, before being repaired with the same resin composite (Filtek Z250). The specimens were re-thermocycled (1000×), sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic fuchsin, sectioned mesiodistally and photographed digitally. The extent of dye penetration was measured by image analysis software (ImageJ) for both bur-finished and air-abraded surfaces at resin-tooth and resin-resin interfaces. The data were analyzed statistically. RESULTS: BeautiBond exhibited the most microleakage at every site. Irrespective of adhesive and initial composite type, air-abrasion showed less microleakage except for BeautiBond. The type of initial repaired restorative material did not affect the microleakage. BeautiBond adhesive may not be preferred in resin composite repair in terms of microleakage prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Surface treatment with air-abrasion produced the lowest microleakage scores, independent of the adhesive systems and the pre-existing resin composite type. Pre-existing composite type does not affect the microleakage issue. All-in-one adhesive resin (BeautiBond) may not be preferred in resin composite repair in terms of microleakage prevention. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4319307/ /pubmed/25713491 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.149652 Text en Copyright: © European Journal of 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
Celik, Cigdem
Cehreli, Sevi Burcak
Arhun, Neslihan
Resin composite repair: Quantitative microleakage evaluation of resin-resin and resin-tooth interfaces with different surface treatments
title Resin composite repair: Quantitative microleakage evaluation of resin-resin and resin-tooth interfaces with different surface treatments
title_full Resin composite repair: Quantitative microleakage evaluation of resin-resin and resin-tooth interfaces with different surface treatments
title_fullStr Resin composite repair: Quantitative microleakage evaluation of resin-resin and resin-tooth interfaces with different surface treatments
title_full_unstemmed Resin composite repair: Quantitative microleakage evaluation of resin-resin and resin-tooth interfaces with different surface treatments
title_short Resin composite repair: Quantitative microleakage evaluation of resin-resin and resin-tooth interfaces with different surface treatments
title_sort resin composite repair: quantitative microleakage evaluation of resin-resin and resin-tooth interfaces with different surface treatments
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4319307/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25713491
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.149652
work_keys_str_mv AT celikcigdem resincompositerepairquantitativemicroleakageevaluationofresinresinandresintoothinterfaceswithdifferentsurfacetreatments
AT cehreliseviburcak resincompositerepairquantitativemicroleakageevaluationofresinresinandresintoothinterfaceswithdifferentsurfacetreatments
AT arhunneslihan resincompositerepairquantitativemicroleakageevaluationofresinresinandresintoothinterfaceswithdifferentsurfacetreatments