Does the use of a novel self-adhesive flowable composite reduce nanoleakage?

Abstract

ObjectiveThe aim of the study reported here was to evaluate the performance of a self-adhesive flowable composite and two self-etching adhesive systems, when subjected to cyclic loading, in preventing the nanoleakage of Class V restorations.MethodsWedge-shape Class V cavities were prepared (4×2×2 mm [length × width × depth]) on the buccal surfaces of 90 sound human premolars. Cavities were divided randomly into three groups (n=30) according to the used adhesive (Xeno® V [self-etching adhesive system]) and BOND-1® SF (solvent-free self-etching adhesive system) in conjunction with Artiste® Nano Composite resin, and Fusio™ Liquid Dentin (self-adhesive flowable composite), consecutively. Each group was further divided into three subgroups (n=10): (A) control, (B) subjected to occlusal cyclic loading (90N for 5,000 cycles), and (C) subjected to occlusal cyclic loading (90N for 10,000 cycles). Teeth then were coated with nail polish up to 1 mm from the interface, immersed in 50% silver nitrate solution for 24 hours and tested for nanoleakage using the environmental scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive analysis X-ray analysis. Data were statistically analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and Tukey’s post hoc tests (P≤0.05).ResultsThe Fusio Liquid Dentin group showed statistically significant lower percentages of silver penetration (0.55 μ) compared with the BOND-1 SF (3.45 μ) and Xeno V (3.82 μ) groups, which were not statistically different from each other, as they both showed higher silver penetration.ConclusionUnder the test conditions, the self-adhesive flowable composite provided better sealing ability. Aging of the two tested adhesive systems, as a function of cyclic loading, increased nanoleakage.

Bond strength of self-adhesive flowable resin composites to tooth structure

“…SAFRCs are not even recommended as light-cured resin cements because film thickness is not suitable for that purpose and limited color availability 5 . Besides bond strength of SAFRCs to hard dental tissues, other relevant aspects such as color stability 61 , water sorption, solubility 13 , nanoleakage 14 , microleakage 16,62 , polymerization stress, gap formation 63 need further research.…”

“…Nonetheless, the number of clinical trials assessing the performance of SAFRCs restorations or pit and fissure sealants are extremely limited and controversial [10][11][12] to contraindicate or recommend these novel dental materials. However, there are fairly available in vitro studies which evaluate microleakage, nanoleakage, solubility, water sorption and bond strength of SAFRCs [13][14][15][16] . This latter is one of the most important and critical features on self-adhesive materials due to it reflects the physico-chemical interaction with hard dental tissues, which could partially predict common clinical problems such as microleakage and retention loss.…”

Development and status of resin composite as dental restorative materials

“…Self-adhesive composites combine the benefits of adhesive and composite technology, bringing novel horizons to restorative techniques, as they are claimed to bond to tooth tissue without a separate adhesive. 32 These materials contain self-etching and/ or self-adhesive monomers that are able to etch enamel and dentin surfaces or chemically bond to hydroxyapatite, such as the 4-methacryloxyethyl trimellitic acid, glycerol phosphate dimethacrylate monomers, 10-MDP monomer, and so on. 33 Though several in vitro studies on physical properties, bond strength, and marginal sealing potential have been published, [34][35][36] clinical research studies ongoing on these products are still limited.…”

Comparative Analysis of the Shear Bond Strength of Flowable Self-Adhering Resin-Composites Adhesive to Dentin with a Conventional Adhesive

“…These new SRCs have been proposed as an adhesive-free restorative material indicated for the restoration of small class I cavities, class V cavities, and noncarious cervical lesions, as well as for lining in class I and II restorations [24]. Despite the ease of clinical use and other advantages of these SRCs, their durability and clinical service are still a matter of great concern for many dental practitioners [25]. Limited studies are available about their physical and mechanical properties [21,26,27].…”