PURPOSE: To assess the microleakage of Class V preparations restored with three bonding agents using wet and dry bonding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cavities were prepared in the buccal and lingual surfaces of extracted human premolar teeth and restored with resin composite after application of the dentin bonding agents, using a wet or dry bonding technique. The teeth were stored for 2 weeks at 37 degrees C, thermocycled, and the restorations examined for leakage using buffered methylene blue as the marker. The teeth were sectioned bucco-lingually through the restorations and the degree of microleakage assessed microscopically. RESULTS: All groups showed leakage at both the dentin and enamel margins. There was no significant difference in leakage at the enamel margins between groups (p > 0.05) and no significant differences in leakage between the wet bonding (P > 0.05) or dry bonding (P > 0.05) procedures. However, when comparing the effects of wet and dry bonding, there was less leakage at the gingival margin in the groups where the bonding agent was acetone-based and wet bonding was used (P < 0.03). There was no significant difference in leakage for Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus when either maleic acid or phosphoric acid was used as the etchant (P > 0.05).
PURPOSE: To assess the microleakage of Class V preparations restored with three bonding agents using wet and dry bonding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cavities were prepared in the buccal and lingual surfaces of extracted human premolar teeth and restored with resin composite after application of the dentin bonding agents, using a wet or dry bonding technique. The teeth were stored for 2 weeks at 37 degrees C, thermocycled, and the restorations examined for leakage using buffered methylene blue as the marker. The teeth were sectioned bucco-lingually through the restorations and the degree of microleakage assessed microscopically. RESULTS: All groups showed leakage at both the dentin and enamel margins. There was no significant difference in leakage at the enamel margins between groups (p > 0.05) and no significant differences in leakage between the wet bonding (P > 0.05) or dry bonding (P > 0.05) procedures. However, when comparing the effects of wet and dry bonding, there was less leakage at the gingival margin in the groups where the bonding agent was acetone-based and wet bonding was used (P < 0.03). There was no significant difference in leakage for Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus when either maleic acid or phosphoric acid was used as the etchant (P > 0.05).