PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the in vitro microleakage of fourth-generation filled and unfilled adhesive resin systems with fifth-generation filled and unfilled adhesive resin systems in both primary and permanent teeth. METHODS:Eighty extracted or exfoliated human noncarious teeth (40 primary and 40 permanent) were assigned to each of 8 groups. Groups 1, 3, 5 and 7 were primary teeth, and groups 2, 4, 6 and 8 contained permanent teeth. Groups 1 and 2 were bonded with Optibond Fl (Kerr), groups 3 and 4 with Scotchbond Multipurpose (3M), groups 5 and 6 with Optibond Solo Plus (Kerr) and groups 7 and 8 with Single Bond (3M). All teeth received a Class V cavity preparation, and the cavosurface margins were placed entirely in enamel. They were then restored with TPH Spectrum Shade Al (Dentsply Caulk). All teeth were thermocycled, stained with basic fuchsin, sectioned and viewed under the microscope. Measurements were recorded in absolute millimeters and relative grades as judged by 2 evaluators. RESULTS: No significant difference in microleakage was observed between fourth- and fifth-generation adhesive resin systems, whether filled or unfilled, or applied on primary or permanent teeth. Significant differences were found in the amount of microleakage at the gingival and occlusal surfaces in all groups. One-bottle, fifth-generation adhesive resin systems permit easier application with the same effectives as the 2-bottle, fourth-generation systems. CONCLUSIONS: One-bottle, fifth-generation adhesive resin systems permit easier application with the same effectiveness as the 2-bottle, fourth-gerenration systems.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the in vitro microleakage of fourth-generation filled and unfilled adhesive resin systems with fifth-generation filled and unfilled adhesive resin systems in both primary and permanent teeth. METHODS: Eighty extracted or exfoliated human noncarious teeth (40 primary and 40 permanent) were assigned to each of 8 groups. Groups 1, 3, 5 and 7 were primary teeth, and groups 2, 4, 6 and 8 contained permanent teeth. Groups 1 and 2 were bonded with Optibond Fl (Kerr), groups 3 and 4 with Scotchbond Multipurpose (3M), groups 5 and 6 with Optibond Solo Plus (Kerr) and groups 7 and 8 with Single Bond (3M). All teeth received a Class V cavity preparation, and the cavosurface margins were placed entirely in enamel. They were then restored with TPH Spectrum Shade Al (Dentsply Caulk). All teeth were thermocycled, stained with basic fuchsin, sectioned and viewed under the microscope. Measurements were recorded in absolute millimeters and relative grades as judged by 2 evaluators. RESULTS: No significant difference in microleakage was observed between fourth- and fifth-generation adhesive resin systems, whether filled or unfilled, or applied on primary or permanent teeth. Significant differences were found in the amount of microleakage at the gingival and occlusal surfaces in all groups. One-bottle, fifth-generation adhesive resin systems permit easier application with the same effectives as the 2-bottle, fourth-generation systems. CONCLUSIONS: One-bottle, fifth-generation adhesive resin systems permit easier application with the same effectiveness as the 2-bottle, fourth-gerenration systems.