Celso A Klein1, Douglas da Silva2, Eduardo G Reston2, Diana Lb Borghetti2, Roberto Zimmer2. 1. Department of Operative Dentistry, Universidade Luterana do Brasil, Canoas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, Phone: +5551999687105, e-mail: profcelsoklein@gmail.com. 2. Department of Operative Dentistry, Universidade Luterana do Brasil, Canoas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study is to assess marginal microleakage of cervical cavities restored with composite resins and two different adhesive techniques subjected to at-home and in-office bleaching. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized, blind laboratory experiment, 60 bovine teeth recently extracted were collected and divided into six groups (n = 10 each group). The teeth received cervical cavity preparations (2 mm × 3 mm × 1 mm) with enamel margins. Two different adhesive systems were used (Single Bond 2 and Clearfil SE Bond), in addition to composite resin (Z250). Restored teeth received two different bleaching gels (Opalescence PF and Opalescence Boost). Teeth were thermo-cycled and analyzed under confocal laser scanning microscopy. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed (p > 0.05) in microleakage scores between the two groups not subjected to bleaching nor between the four groups that received bleaching treatment (p > 0.05), regardless of the gel and adhesive system employed. However, when comparing nonbleached with bleached teeth, those not subjected to bleaching showed statistically lower marginal microleakage scores (p < 0.05). Data were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc test, with significance set at 5%. CONCLUSION: Marginal microleakage in composite resin restorations is influenced by the action of bleaching agents used both at-home and in-office, regardless of the adhesive system employed (total-etch or self-etch). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Both at-home and in-office bleaching agents have an influence on the adhesive interface of resin restorations, producing changes and inducing marginal leakage.
RCT Entities:
AIM: The aim of this study is to assess marginal microleakage of cervical cavities restored with composite resins and two different adhesive techniques subjected to at-home and in-office bleaching. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized, blind laboratory experiment, 60 bovine teeth recently extracted were collected and divided into six groups (n = 10 each group). The teeth received cervical cavity preparations (2 mm × 3 mm × 1 mm) with enamel margins. Two different adhesive systems were used (Single Bond 2 and Clearfil SE Bond), in addition to composite resin (Z250). Restored teeth received two different bleaching gels (Opalescence PF and Opalescence Boost). Teeth were thermo-cycled and analyzed under confocal laser scanning microscopy. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed (p > 0.05) in microleakage scores between the two groups not subjected to bleaching nor between the four groups that received bleaching treatment (p > 0.05), regardless of the gel and adhesive system employed. However, when comparing nonbleached with bleached teeth, those not subjected to bleaching showed statistically lower marginal microleakage scores (p < 0.05). Data were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc test, with significance set at 5%. CONCLUSION: Marginal microleakage in composite resin restorations is influenced by the action of bleaching agents used both at-home and in-office, regardless of the adhesive system employed (total-etch or self-etch). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Both at-home and in-office bleaching agents have an influence on the adhesive interface of resin restorations, producing changes and inducing marginal leakage.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adhesive systems; Class V cavities; Laboratory research; Microleakage Tooth bleaching.