IADR Abstract Archives
Effect of Sandblast Surface Treatment on Microleakage of Repaired Composites
Objectives: To investigate how microleakage is affected by sandblast surface treatment in resin based composite restoration repairs.
Methods: Thirty Class I (4x4x3mm) preparations were prepared on extracted human molars. All teeth were etched (Ultra-Etch®, Ultradent), bonded (ExciTE®F, Ivoclar Vivadent), and restored (Filtek™ Supreme Ultra Universal Restorative, 3M Oral Care). All steps followed the manufacturers’ instructions. After storing the samples in water for three weeks, a notch (4x2x2mm) was made between the tooth structure and the composite in all of the teeth to simulate defects. The samples were then randomly assigned into three groups for different surface treatments prior to repairing with composite: (1) no treatment (control), (2) etch and bond, and (3) sandblast, etch, and bond (n=10 x3). All samples were thermocycled for 5,000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C with a dwell time of 30 seconds, immersed in ammoniacal silver nitrate solution, and then exposed to a photo-developing solution. They were evaluated for microleakage in two locations: (1) between the tooth structure and the new composite, and (2) between the new composite and the existing composite. A microleakage scale of 0-4 was used. Differences in microleakage scores between the three experimental groups were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test.
Results: Group 2 (etch and bond) showed a statistically significant higher microleakage dye penetration score between the new composite and the existing composite than Group 3 (sandblast, etch, and bond) (p<0.001) (Table 1). There was no statistically significant difference in microleakage between the tooth structure and the new composite in the two groups (Table 1).
Conclusions: Sandblast surface treatment prior to etching and bonding significantly reduced microleakage between new composite and existing composite in resin-based composite restoration repairs. Future studies with larger sample sizes will need to be done to confirm the findings.
Methods: Thirty Class I (4x4x3mm) preparations were prepared on extracted human molars. All teeth were etched (Ultra-Etch®, Ultradent), bonded (ExciTE®F, Ivoclar Vivadent), and restored (Filtek™ Supreme Ultra Universal Restorative, 3M Oral Care). All steps followed the manufacturers’ instructions. After storing the samples in water for three weeks, a notch (4x2x2mm) was made between the tooth structure and the composite in all of the teeth to simulate defects. The samples were then randomly assigned into three groups for different surface treatments prior to repairing with composite: (1) no treatment (control), (2) etch and bond, and (3) sandblast, etch, and bond (n=10 x3). All samples were thermocycled for 5,000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C with a dwell time of 30 seconds, immersed in ammoniacal silver nitrate solution, and then exposed to a photo-developing solution. They were evaluated for microleakage in two locations: (1) between the tooth structure and the new composite, and (2) between the new composite and the existing composite. A microleakage scale of 0-4 was used. Differences in microleakage scores between the three experimental groups were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test.
Results: Group 2 (etch and bond) showed a statistically significant higher microleakage dye penetration score between the new composite and the existing composite than Group 3 (sandblast, etch, and bond) (p<0.001) (Table 1). There was no statistically significant difference in microleakage between the tooth structure and the new composite in the two groups (Table 1).
Conclusions: Sandblast surface treatment prior to etching and bonding significantly reduced microleakage between new composite and existing composite in resin-based composite restoration repairs. Future studies with larger sample sizes will need to be done to confirm the findings.
IMAGES
2630816_File000000.jpg
2630816_File000000.jpg