| Literature DB >> 25024835 |
Mohammad Javad Moghaddas1, Horieh Moosavi1, Marjaneh Ghavamnasiri2.
Abstract
Background and aims. This in vitro study evaluated the effect of delaying composite resin restorative procedures bonded with total-etch and self-etch adhesive systems on microleakage following root canal irrigation with sodium hy-pochlorite (NaOCl) solution. Materials and methods. The roofs of pulp chambers and roots (1–2 mm below furcation) of 40 human first molar teeth were cut and pulp tissues completely removed. The teeth were randomly divided into two main groups (n = 20). Group E (experimental) was irrigated with 5% NaOCl and group C (control) was left untreated. For the experimental group, after obturation of root canals with gutta-percha and sealing the cavity with Cavit, the specimens were stored in artificialsaliva for two weeks. Then each group was divided into two subgroups according to the total-etch or self-etch adhesive application protocol: Scotchbond Multi-Purpose and Clearfil SE Bond. The specimens were restored with composite resin using each bonding agent: Z250 and Clearfil Photo Core, respectively. Fluid filtration method was used for evaluation of microleakage. Data was analyzed using two-way ANOVA ( α= 0.05). Results. Two types of dentin adhesive systems showed no statistically significant differences in microleakage (P = 0.77). NaOCl-treated groups demonstrated significantly higher microleakage values compared to the non-NaOCl-treated groups (P= 0.001). The interaction between the two factors was not significant (P = 0.78). Conclusion. Differences in inlay temperature had no effect on microleakage. CAD/CAM inlays had lower cement thick-ness than laboratory-made inlays, but this was not related to their microleakage.Entities:
Keywords: Adhesive system; microleakage; sodium hypochlorite
Year: 2014 PMID: 25024835 PMCID: PMC4091695 DOI: 10.5681/joddd.2014.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects ISSN: 2008-210X
Material names, compositions and restorative procedures used in this study
| Restorative Procedure | Composition | Product name |
| Dentin bonding system | ||
| Etch for 15 s, rinse for15 s, gently dry for 5 s | 37% phosphoric acid , water | |
| Apply one coat of primer | ||
| 10 second- air dry 5 s | ||
| Apply one coat of adhesive, light cure 10 s with 500 mW/cm2 | HEMA, polyalkenoic copolymer, water | |
| 20 s apply, gently dry | Bis-GMA, HEMA, photoinitiator | Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (SBMP) (3M) |
| Apply, gently dry, | Primer-MDP, HEMA, water, light curing catalyst. | Clearfil SE Bond (CSEB) (Kuraray) |
| 10 s light cured | Adhesive-light curing catalyst | |
| Resin composite | ||
| Apply in 2 mm thickness, 40 s light-cured | Zirconia/silica particles Bis-GMA, UDMA, Bis-EMA | Z250 (3M) |
| Apply in 2 mm thickness, 40 s light-cured | Silanated silica, silanated barium glass, bisphenol A diglycidylmethacrylate, CQ | Clearfil Photo Core (Kuraray) |
| HEMA, 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate, ; Bis-GMA, bisphenol A glycidyl methacrylate ; MDP, 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate ; UDMA, Urethane dimethacrylate; CQ, Camphorquinone. | ||
Figure 1.Means and standard deviations of microleakage in all the experimental groups
| Group description | Code | Number | Mean (µL/min/cm H2O) | S.D |
| Without NaOCl+(SBMP) | CS | 10 | 0.000023414 | 0.00000325 |
| Without NaOCl +(CSEB) | CC | 10 | 0.000022092 | 0.000013503 |
| With NaOCl+(SBMP) | ES | 10 | 0.00092982 | 0.00006727 |
| With NaOCl+(CSEB) | EC | 10 | 0.00104781 | 0.00045533 |
Comparison of microleakage in restored specimens with and without NaOCl treatment. (Different letters indicate statistically significant effect.)
| Procedure description (Code) | Number | Mean leakage (µL/min/cm H2O) | Mean leakage (µL/min/cm H2O) | S.D | P |
| Without 5% NaOCl (CS, CC) | 20 | 0.00022753 a | 0.00022753 a | 0.00003826 | 0.001 |
| With 5% NaOCl (ES, EC) | 20 | 0.00093683 b | 0.00093683 b | 0.00006049 |