IADR Abstract Archives
Adhesive Bonding Agent Film Thickness Influence on Microleakage
Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the correlation between clinical radiographic film thickness and microleakage allowed by current adhesive bonding agent systems.
Methods: Sixty-five third molars were selected at random for Class II mesial-occlusal cavity preparations. Divided into five groups of 13, each received a unique adhesive bonding agent per manufacturer instructions. Control group did not receive bonding agent, the remaining four groups receiving one of the following bonding systems: Clearfil™ SE Bond (Kuraray Medical; CF), ExciTE® F (Ivoclar-Vivadent; EF), Peak® Universal Bond (Ultradent; PU), and Ace®All-Bond SE® (BISCO; AB). Preparations were filled with Filtek™ Supreme Ultra Universal Restorative (3M) and thermocycled for 10,000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C with a dwell time of 1-minute. Samples were immersed in 2% methylene blue for 24 hours, embedded in acrylic resin, and sectioned mesio-distally at the midline. Using an optical light microscope (Olympus-SZX16®), microleakage was rated at the tooth-restoration interface following the dye-penetration scale: 0=No penetration, 1=Penetration less than one-third, 2=Penetration beyond one-third, 3=Penetration to axial wall. Dye-penetration was measured in micrometers with Buehler OmniMet™ 9.0 software. The median of the microleakage was compared using Kruskal– Wallis test with Dunn’s test and the Bonferroni correction for pair-wise comparisons.
Results: The statistical median microleakage for AB and EF expressed higher values (p=.0341, p=.003) but did not provide statistical significance when compared to CF and PU (p=.001, p=.003). All adhesive agents expressed statistical significance when compared to the control (p>.0001). The statistical median of microleakage in increasing order: CF, PU, EF, AB, control. CF and PU are not statistically different in preventing microleakage.
Conclusions: Statistical evidence shows there is no direct correlation between microleakage and adhesive agent film thickness. Therefore, clinical radiographs showing a radiolucent region from adhesive bonding agent neither infers the presence of microleakage nor indicates the replacement of composite restorations.
Methods: Sixty-five third molars were selected at random for Class II mesial-occlusal cavity preparations. Divided into five groups of 13, each received a unique adhesive bonding agent per manufacturer instructions. Control group did not receive bonding agent, the remaining four groups receiving one of the following bonding systems: Clearfil™ SE Bond (Kuraray Medical; CF), ExciTE® F (Ivoclar-Vivadent; EF), Peak® Universal Bond (Ultradent; PU), and Ace®All-Bond SE® (BISCO; AB). Preparations were filled with Filtek™ Supreme Ultra Universal Restorative (3M) and thermocycled for 10,000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C with a dwell time of 1-minute. Samples were immersed in 2% methylene blue for 24 hours, embedded in acrylic resin, and sectioned mesio-distally at the midline. Using an optical light microscope (Olympus-SZX16®), microleakage was rated at the tooth-restoration interface following the dye-penetration scale: 0=No penetration, 1=Penetration less than one-third, 2=Penetration beyond one-third, 3=Penetration to axial wall. Dye-penetration was measured in micrometers with Buehler OmniMet™ 9.0 software. The median of the microleakage was compared using Kruskal– Wallis test with Dunn’s test and the Bonferroni correction for pair-wise comparisons.
Results: The statistical median microleakage for AB and EF expressed higher values (p=.0341, p=.003) but did not provide statistical significance when compared to CF and PU (p=.001, p=.003). All adhesive agents expressed statistical significance when compared to the control (p>.0001). The statistical median of microleakage in increasing order: CF, PU, EF, AB, control. CF and PU are not statistically different in preventing microleakage.
Conclusions: Statistical evidence shows there is no direct correlation between microleakage and adhesive agent film thickness. Therefore, clinical radiographs showing a radiolucent region from adhesive bonding agent neither infers the presence of microleakage nor indicates the replacement of composite restorations.