No abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of three resin surface sealants to prevent microleakage in Class V composite resin restorations. Forty Class V cavities with the occlusal margin in enamel and gingival margin in dentin were prepared on the buccal surfaces of sound extracted molars, and restored with composite resin. Restorations were randomly assigned into one of four equal groups (n = 10): a control group, without resin sealing, and three experimental groups in which margins were sealed with Fortify Plus, Biscover and Permaseal, respectively. Specimens were thermocycled, immersed in a 2% methylene blue solution for 4 hours, sectioned longitudinally, and observed the leakage at the occlusal and gingival margins. The result was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney test and Wilcoxon signed rank test.In conclusion, the ability to reduce microleakage at occlusal margins was similar in all of three sealants. However at gingival margin, it depended on the type of used resin surface sealant. At gingival margin, control and Fortify Plus group showed statistically higher microleakage than PermaSeal group, and Fortify Plus group also showed higher microleakage than BisCover group (p < 0.05). [J Kor Acad Cons Dent 31(4):282-289, 2006]

No abstract

This study was to compare the microshear bond strength (μ SBS) of light-and chemically cured composites to enamel coupled with four 2-step self-etch adhesives and also to evaluate the incompatibility between 2-step self-etch adhesives and chemically cured composite resin.Crown segments of extracted human molars were cut mesiodistally, and a 1 ㎜ thickness of specimen was made. They were assigned to four groups by adhesives used: SE group (Clearfil SE Bond), AdheSE group (AdheSE), Tyrian group (Tyrian SPE/One-Step Plus), and Contax group (Contax). Each adhesive was applied to a cut enamel surface as per the manufacturer' s instruction. Lightcured (Filtek Z250) or chemically cured composite (Luxacore Smartmix Dual) was bonded to the enamel of each specimen using a Tygon tube. After storage in distilled water for 24 hours, the bonded specimens were subjected to μ SBS testing with a crosshead speed of 1 ㎜/minute. The mean μ SBS (n=20 for each group) was statistically compared using two-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD, and t test at 95% level. Also the interface of enamel and composite was evaluated under FE-SEM.The results of this study were as follows; 1. The μ SBS of the SE Bond group to the enamel was significantly higher than that of the AdheSE group, the Tyrian group, and the Contax group in both the light-cured and the chemically cured composite resin (p < 0.05). 2. There was not a significant difference among the AdheSE group, the Tyrian group, and the Contax group in both the light-cured and the chemically cured composite resin. 3. The μ SBS of the light-cured composite resin was significantly higher than that of the chemically cured composite resin when same adhesive was applied to the enamel (p < 0.05). 4. The interface of enamel and all 2-step self-etch adhesives showed close adaptation, and so the incompatibility of the chemically cured composite resin did not show. [J Kor Acad Cons Dent 32(3):169-179, 2007]

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of passive or active application of primer and coat times of bond on the shear bond strength when a self-etching primer adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond) was applied to enamel surface.Crowns of sixteen human molars were selected. Buccal and lingual enamels of crowns were partially exposed and slabs of 1.2 mm thick were made. They were divided into one of four equal groups (n = 8). Group 1: passive application of Primer and 1 coat of Bond, Group 2: active application of Primer and 1 coat of Bond, Group 3: passive application of Primer and 2 coats of Bond, Group 4: active application of Primer and 2 coats of Bond. Clearfil AP-X was bonded to enamel suface of each group using Tygon tubes. The bonded specimens were subjected to microshear bond strength (uSBS) testing with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min.The results of this study were as follows; 1. The uSBS of Group 1 was the lowest among groups and the uSBS of Group 4 was the highest. 2. There was not statistically significant interaction between enamel uSBS by application method of Primer and coat time of Bond (p > 0.05). 3. There was not statistically significant difference between enamel uSBS by passive and active application of Primer (p > 0.05). 4. There was statistically significant difference between enamel uSBS by one-and two-coat of Bond (p < 0.05). [J Kor Acad Cons Dent 33(2):90-97, 2008]