Effect of Surface Sealants on Microleakage of Composite Resin Restorations

Methods: Standard Class V cavities (3x2x1,5mm) were prepared at the cemento-enamel junction on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 35 human premolars. The cavities were treated with an etch-and-rinse adhesive system (Single Bond 2, 3M ESPE) and restored with a nanocomposite resin (Filtek Supreme XT, 3M ESPE). Restorations were finished and polished using a disc system (Sof-Lex, 3M ESPE) after 24 hours and divided into seven groups (n=10) according to the sealing materials: Group 1- Negative control (without use of any sealant); Group 2– Positive control, Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Medical); Group 3– Top Coat (Kuraray Medical); Group 4– Fortify Plus (Bisco); Group 5- Clinpro white varnish (3M ESPE); Group 6- G Coat (GC); Group 7– Opti Guard (Kerr). Teeth were stored in distilled water for 24 hours at 37°C and thermocycled 1000 times. They were then, immersed in 0.5% aqueous basic fuchsin dye solution for 24 hours and sectioned longitudinally in bucco-lingual direction. The slices were observed under a stereomicroscope (x20 magnification) by two examiners and dye penetration scores were recorded separately for enamel and dentin. Data were analyzed using Chi-square test (p=0.05).

Results: There were no significant difference between enamel and dentin margins in all groups (p>0.05). For enamel, G Coat showed no microleakage, while Clearfil SE Bond exhibited the highest scores (p>0.05). For dentin, Top Coat resulted in the lowest microleakage, whereas Fortify Plus showed the highest microleakage (p>0.05). However, the results of experimental groups were not statistically different from the control groups for both enamel and dentin margins (p>0.05).

Conclusion: The microleakage of resin composite restorations did not differ with the application of surface sealants.