| Literature DB >> 19212509 |
Cigdem Küçükeşmen1, Hayriye Sönmez.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of dental fluorosis and total and self-etch bonding systems on microleakage of Class-V composite restorations in permanent molar teeth.Entities:
Keywords: Class-V restorations; Composites; Dental fluorosis; Microleakage
Year: 2008 PMID: 19212509 PMCID: PMC2633154
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Dent
Figure 1The criteria used for indexing.22,23
All test groups according to TFI levels/bonding/etching procedures with codes (n=7).
| TFI levels | Bonding/etching procedures
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Groups a | Groups b | Groups c | |
| Group 0a | Group 0b | Group 0c | |
| Group 1a | Group 1b | Group 1c | |
| Group 4a | Group 4b | Group 4c | |
Groups 0: Non-fluorosed teeth in TFI=0
Groups 1: Fluorosed-teeth in TFI=1–3
Groups 4: Fluorosed-teeth in TFI=4
Groups a: SB total-etch bonding system/30s acid-etching procedure
Groups b: SB total-etch bonding system/60s acid-etching procedure
Groups c: PLP self-etch bonding system/no acid-etching procedure
Figure 2The scoring method of dye penetration according to Alavi and Kianimanesh.24
Statistical differences between teeth in three levels of TFI for occlusal and cervical margins according to Kruskal-Wallis Test (P<.05 = *).
| Chi-Square | df | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 34.52 | 8 | .000* | |
| 47.21 | 8 | .000* |
Statistical differences between TFI/bonding/etching groups according to Mann-Whitney U Test for occlusal and cervical margins (P<.05 = *).
| Significant differences between test groups | Values of Mann-Whitney U Test | P<.05 = *
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oclusally | Cervically | ||||
| 0a | 0b | 10.5 | 7.5 | .037* | .015* |
| 0c | 10 | 10.5 | .03* | .037* | |
| 1a | 12.5 | 23.5 | .054 | .872 | |
| 1b | 24.5 | 15 | 1 | .091 | |
| 1c | 5 | 5 | .007* | .006* | |
| 4a | 5 | 3 | .006* | .004* | |
| 4b | 12.5 | 14 | .054 | .122 | |
| 4c | 5 | 0 | .007* | .001* | |
| 0b | 0c | 2 | 1.5 | .002* | .002* |
| 1a | 2.5 | 7.5 | .002* | .015* | |
| 1b | 10.5 | 14 | .037* | .107 | |
| 1c | 1 | 0 | .001* | .001* | |
| 4a | 1 | 0 | .001* | .001* | |
| 4b | 2.5 | 3 | .002* | .004* | |
| 4c | 1 | 0 | .002* | .001* | |
| 0c | 1a | 21 | 13.5 | .591 | .116 |
| 1b | 10 | 3 | .030* | .002* | |
| 1c | 16 | 15 | .225 | .091 | |
| 4a | 17.5 | 9 | .298 | .020* | |
| 4b | 21 | 21 | .591 | .53 | |
| 4c | 14.5 | 0 | .165 | .001* | |
| 1a | 1b | 12.5 | 15 | .054 | .091 |
| 1c | 13 | 8.5 | .1 | .028* | |
| 4a | 14 | 6 | .122 | .013* | |
| 4b | 24.5 | 16.5 | 1 | .253 | |
| 4c | 12 | 1 | .08 | .002* | |
| 1b | 1c | 5 | 0 | .007* | .001* |
| 4a | 5 | 0 | .006* | .001* | |
| 4b | 12.5 | 6 | .054 | .007* | |
| 4c | 5 | 0 | .007* | .001* | |
| 1c | 4a | 22 | 16.5 | .705 | .244 |
| 4b | 13 | 12.5 | 1 | .054 | |
| 4c | 21.5 | 2 | .678 | .020* | |
| 4a | 4b | 14 | 7.5 | .122 | .015* |
| 4c | 19.5 | 7.5 | .473 | .020* | |
| 4b | 4c | 12 | 0 | .08 | .001* |
Figure 3Statistical differences between all groups (occlusally) (* = P<.05 ).
Figure 4Statistical differences between all groups (cervically) (* = P<.05 ).
Descriptives for occlusal and cervical margins according to Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test.
| Margins | n | Mean | SD | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occlusal | 63 | 1.25 | 0.82 | 0 | 4 |
| Cervical | 63 | 1.81 | 1.08 | 0 | 4 |
Statistical differences between occlusal and cervical margins according to Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test (P<.05 = *).
| Significant differences between occlusal-cervical margins | |
|---|---|
| Z | − 4.19718 |
| P | .000* |