PURPOSE: To evaluate the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) and marginal sealing ability of a self-adhering flowable composite between dentin and composite interfaces, as well as the microleakage of Class V restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The occlusal thirds of 40 third molars were removed and randomly divided into 4 groups according to the applied adhesive: Adper Easy One (AEO, 3M ESPE), Clearfil SE Bond (CSEB, Kuraray), Prime & Bond NT (PBNT, Dentsply) and a self-adhering flowable composite (Dyad Flow, DF, Kerr). Filtek Flowable (3M ESPE) resin composite crowns were then built up in the first three groups; in group DF, composite crowns were built up without the application of an adhesive. Thirty stick-shaped microspecimens were prepared per group, 10 of which were used for morphological observation of bonded interfaces by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) after decalcification. The remaining microspecimens underwent microtensile bond strength testing and the failure mode was analyzed. Microleakage evaluation was performed on 10 premolars per group in which standardized box-shaped Class V cavities were prepared. After 500 thermocycles, the premolars were immersed in 1% methylene blue for 24 h, and three slices from each tooth were observed under a stereomicroscope and scored. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA, Student-Newman-Keuls and chi-square tests. RESULTS: The PBNT group presented the highest μTBS values, followed by the CSEB and AEO groups, which did not differ significantly from each other. The DF group showed the lowest μTBS values. No significant differences in microleakage were observed among these four groups. CONCLUSION: Although individual usage of the self-adhering flowable composite showed the lowest bond strength, the same marginal sealing ability was observed as that of combining self-etching and etch-and-rinse adhesives with flowable composite.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) and marginal sealing ability of a self-adhering flowable composite between dentin and composite interfaces, as well as the microleakage of Class V restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The occlusal thirds of 40 third molars were removed and randomly divided into 4 groups according to the applied adhesive: Adper Easy One (AEO, 3M ESPE), Clearfil SE Bond (CSEB, Kuraray), Prime & Bond NT (PBNT, Dentsply) and a self-adhering flowable composite (Dyad Flow, DF, Kerr). Filtek Flowable (3M ESPE) resin composite crowns were then built up in the first three groups; in group DF, composite crowns were built up without the application of an adhesive. Thirty stick-shaped microspecimens were prepared per group, 10 of which were used for morphological observation of bonded interfaces by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) after decalcification. The remaining microspecimens underwent microtensile bond strength testing and the failure mode was analyzed. Microleakage evaluation was performed on 10 premolars per group in which standardized box-shaped Class V cavities were prepared. After 500 thermocycles, the premolars were immersed in 1% methylene blue for 24 h, and three slices from each tooth were observed under a stereomicroscope and scored. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA, Student-Newman-Keuls and chi-square tests. RESULTS: The PBNT group presented the highest μTBS values, followed by the CSEB and AEO groups, which did not differ significantly from each other. The DF group showed the lowest μTBS values. No significant differences in microleakage were observed among these four groups. CONCLUSION: Although individual usage of the self-adhering flowable composite showed the lowest bond strength, the same marginal sealing ability was observed as that of combining self-etching and etch-and-rinse adhesives with flowable composite.
Authors: Magali Inglês; Joana Vasconcelos E Cruz; Ana Mano Azul; Mário Polido; António H S Delgado Journal: Polymers (Basel) Date: 2022-09-21 Impact factor: 4.967