Comparison of Microleakage of Class V Restoration with Self-etch and Selective-etch Adhesive Systems: An In Vitro Study

Abstract

Purpose:This in vitro study is to evaluate the microleakage of the universal and self-etch adhesives in selective-etch and self-etch techniques by evaluating dye penetration. Materials and methods: In this study, a total of 48 restoration and caries-free maxillar or mandibular anterior teeth were used. Standardized class V cavities (1.5 mm deep, not beveled, rounded corners) were prepared on buccal surfaces of all teeth, which were gingival edges above from the enamel-cement junction. A total of 48 teeth were randomly separated into four groups. The first group was restored with Clearfil S3 Bond Plus (Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan) in the self-etch technique. The second group was restored with single bond universal (SBU) adhesive L-pop (3M ESPE, St. Paul, USA) in the self-etch technique. The third group was restored with Clearfil S3 Bond Plus (Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan) in the selective-etch technique. The fourth group was restored with single bond universal adhesive L-pop (3M ESPE, St. Paul, USA) in the selective-etch technique. Final finishing and polishing of the restorations were performed by using discs (ZenitFlex, Munich, Germany). They were thermocycled for 5,000 thermal cycles between water baths at 5°C and 55°C. All surfaces were isolated with two layers of nail polish, except up to 1 mm from the restoration margin for correct evaluation of the microleakage. The apices of all teeth were covered with a composite resin (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic, Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan). The teeth were stored in an oven with 2% methylene blue solution for 24 hours. The samples were embedded in acrylic resin in plastic molds. Results: Microleakage scores (count and percentages) for all four groups are shown in Table 2. The Kruskal-Wallis test was applied to determine the differences between microleakage scores in the four study groups at a 0.05 level of significance. No statistically significant difference was found (p > 0.05). Conclusion:The two adhesive systems showed clinically acceptable microleakage values in two different application techniques.

Influence of Age and Etching Technique on the Microleakage in Class-V Composite Restorations: An In-vitro Study

“…On the contrary, a study by Yalniz et al, [21,22] indicated that no statistical significant differences had been seen between the bonding techniques (selective etch and self-etch) because in selfetch adhesives, dissolution of smear layer by the acidic quality of the reactive monomers are important for demineralizing the underlying dentin similar to selective etch adhesives [21].…”

Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage With Total-Etch, Universal (Self-Etch Mode), and Nano Adhesive Systems in Class V Composite Restorations: An In-Vitro Study

“…Self-etch universal adhesives, when applied to dentin and enamel, do not etch enamel to the same depth as 37% phosphoric acid (pH = 0.1-0.4), which is likely responsible for the high rates of microleakage in the enamel margins of cervical restoration due to their lower acidity (high pH) [15]. Yalniz et al [16] compared the microleakage of Class V restorations with self-etch and selective-etch adhesive systems and reported that the two adhesive systems showed clinically acceptable microleakage values in two different application techniques.…”

Evaluation of the Marginal Integrity of Bulk Fill Flowable Composite vs Glass Ionomer for Carious Cervical Restorations: Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

“…In this study the incisal enamel surface was beveled to increase the surface of enamel exposed to adhesion [26] . Selective etchant adhesive technique was used in this clinical trial because of the lower sensitivity of the technique, lower microleakage score and better clinical performance [27,28] .…”