A A El-Housseiny1, N Farsi. 1. Paediatric Dentistry Division, Faculty of Dentistry, KAAU, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
AIM: To compare the ability of a single bond adhesive to its preceding multiple step dentin bonding agent in reducing microleakage around class V composite resin in primary teeth. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Twelve children, between 9 and 11 years old, with non-carious primary canines indicated for extraction for orthodontic purposes, were selected for this study. Each child had facial surfaces of his or her upper and/or lower canines prepared for class V cavities. One canine was randomly selected for restoration using the Scotchbond Multi Purpose Plus System (group I) and its antimere for the Single Bond adhesive (group II). Thirty cavities were restored by Z-100 composite. Materials were handled according to the instructions of the manufacturer. All teeth were extracted one month later, immersed in 2% basic fuchsin then sectioned to evaluate dye penetration. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found in the degree of microleakage between the two materials. CONCLUSIONS: Neither of the two adhesive systems was able to completely prevent leakage of class V restorations. Additional preventive measures should be implemented whenever using composite resin restorations in children.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To compare the ability of a single bond adhesive to its preceding multiple step dentin bonding agent in reducing microleakage around class V composite resin in primary teeth. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twelve children, between 9 and 11 years old, with non-carious primary canines indicated for extraction for orthodontic purposes, were selected for this study. Each child had facial surfaces of his or her upper and/or lower canines prepared for class V cavities. One canine was randomly selected for restoration using the Scotchbond Multi Purpose Plus System (group I) and its antimere for the Single Bond adhesive (group II). Thirty cavities were restored by Z-100 composite. Materials were handled according to the instructions of the manufacturer. All teeth were extracted one month later, immersed in 2% basic fuchsin then sectioned to evaluate dye penetration. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found in the degree of microleakage between the two materials. CONCLUSIONS: Neither of the two adhesive systems was able to completely prevent leakage of class V restorations. Additional preventive measures should be implemented whenever using composite resin restorations in children.