Article Data

  • Views 618
  • Dowloads 160

Original Research

Open Access

The Effects of Surface Pretreatment on the Microleakage of Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement Restorations

  • Bayrak S1,*,
  • Sen Tunc E1
  • Tuloglu N1

1Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ondokuz Mayıs, 55139, Kurupelit, Samsun, Turkey.

DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.36.3.h827442j74862742 Vol.36,Issue 3,May 2012 pp.279-284

Published: 01 May 2012

*Corresponding Author(s): Bayrak S E-mail: suleb76@yahoo.com

Abstract

To evaluate the effect of different surface pretreatments on the marginal microleakage of Vitremer restorations. Study Design: Class V cavities were prepared on the labial and lingual surfaces of extracted human third molar teeth. Cavities were randomly distributed into six groups according to surface treatment, as follows: Group NC (negative control): no surface treatment; Group VP (positive control): Vitremer Primer; Group PA: 32% phosphoric acid; Group PAA: 20% polyacrylic acid; Group PLP: self-etch adhesive (Prompt L Pop); Group PB: etch&rinse adhesive (Prime&Bond NT). All cavities were restored with Vitremer. Teeth were thermocycled, stained with 0.5% basic fuchsin dye and sectioned. Microleakage values were quantitatively assessed by linear measurement of dye penetration using image-analyzing software. Differences between occlusal and gingival microleakage values within groups were evaluated using paired ttests, and differences among groups were analysed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey tests. Results: There were statistically significant differences between the occlusal and gingival microleakage values for all groups (p<0.05). Microleakage differed significantly among surface pretreatment groups (p<0.001). The negative control and PLP groups showed similar microleakage values, but were significantly higher than other groups for both margins. Although there were no statistically significant differences between positive control and PA, PAA, PB groups, microleakage values of positive control group were smaller than all other experimental groups except for PB group. Conclusions: Vitremer restorations require surface pretreatment to prevent excessive microleakage. Pretreatment with etch&rinse adhesives and Vitremer Primer may reduce microleakage of Vitremer restorations

Keywords

Adhesives, Conditioners, Marginal leakage, Resin-modified glass ionomer cement.

Cite and Share

Bayrak S,Sen Tunc E,Tuloglu N. The Effects of Surface Pretreatment on the Microleakage of Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement Restorations. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2012. 36(3);279-284.

References

1. Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry: the glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J, 132: 133–135, 1972.

2. McLean JW, Nicholson JW, Wilson AD. Proposed nomenclature for glass-ionomer cements and related materials. Quintessence Int, 25: 587–589, 1994.

3. Hotz P, Mclean JW, Sced I, Wilson AD. The bonding of glass-ionomer cement to tooth and metal substances. Br Dent J, 142: 41–47, 1977.

4. Lacefield WR, Reindl MC, Retief DH. Tensile bond strength of glassionomer cement. J Prosthet Dent, 53: 194–198, 1985.

5. Xie D, Brantley WA, Culbertson BM, Wang G. Mechanical properties and microstructures of glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater, 16: 129–138, 2000.

6. Bourke AM, Walls AW, Mccabe JF. Light-activated glass polyalkeonate (ionomer) cements: the setting reaction. J Dent, 20: 115–120, 1992.

7. Yoshida Y, Van Meerbeek B, Nakayama Y, Snauwaert J, Hellemans L, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Wakasa K. Evidence of chemical bonding at biomaterial–hard tissue interfaces. J Dent Res, 79: 709–714, 2000.

8. Fritz UB, Finger WJ, Uno S. Resin-modified glass ionomer cements: bonding to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater, 12: 161–166, 1996.

9. Abdalla AI. Morphological interface between hybrid ionomers and dentin with and without smear-layer removal. J Oral Rehabil, 9: 808–814, 2000.

10. Coutinho E, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Fukuda R, Snauwaert J, Nakayama Y. Gel phase formation at resin-modified glassionomer/ tooth interfaces. J Dent Res, 86: 656–661, 2007.

11. Pereira PN, Yamada T, Inokoshi S, Burrow MF, Sano H, Tagami J. Adhesion of resin-modified glass ionomer cements using resin bonding systems. J Dent, 26: 479–485, 1998.

12. Pereira PN, Yamada T, Tei R, Tagami J. Bond strength and interface micromorphology of an improved resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Am J Dent, 10: 128–132, 1997.

13. Inoue S, Van Meerbeek B, Abe Y, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Sano H. Effect of remaining dentin thickness and the use of conditioner on micro-tensile bond strength of a glass-ionomer adhesive. Dent Mater, 17: 445–455, 2001.

14. Yap AU, Tan AC, Goh AT, Goh DC, Chin KC. Effect of surface treatment and cement maturation on the bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomers to dentin. Oper Dent, 28: 728–733, 2003.

15. Yilmaz Y, Gurbuz T, Kocogullari ME. The influence of various conditioner agents on the interdiffusion zone and microleakage of a glass ionomer cement with a high viscosity in primary teeth. Oper Dent, 30: 105–112, 2005.

16. Nakanuma K, Hayakawa T, Tomita T, Yamazaki M. Effect of the application of dentin primers and a dentin bonding agent on the adhesion between the resin-modified glass-ionomer cement and dentin. Dent Mater, 14: 281–286, 1998.

17. Yamamoto K, Kojima H, Tsutsumi T, Oguchi H. Effects of tooth-conditioning agents on bond strength of a resin-modified glass-ionomer sealant to enamel. J Dent, 31: 13–18, 2003.

18. Setien VJ, Armstrong SR, Wefel JS. Interfacial fracture toughness between resin-modified glass ionomer and dentin using three different surface treatments. Dent Mater, 21: 498–504, 2005.

19. Wang L, Sakai VT, Kawai ES, Buzalaf MA, Atta MT. Effect of adhesive systems associated with resin-modified glass ionomer cements. J Oral Rehabil, 33: 110–116, 2006.

20. Fagundes TC, Toledano M, Navarro MF, Osorio R. Resistance to degradation of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements dentine bonds. J Dent, 37: 342–347, 2009.

21. Tay FR, Sano H, Carvalho R, Pashley EL, Pashley DH. An ultrastructural study of the influence of acidity of self-etching primers and smear layer thickness on bonding to intact dentin. J Adhes Dent, 2: 83–98, 2000.

22. Chuang SF, Jin YT, Tsai PF, Wong TY. Effect of various surface protections on the margin microleakage of resin-modified glass ionomer cements. J Prosthet Dent, 86: 309–314, 2001.

23. Delmé KI, Deman PJ, De Bruyne MA, De Moor RJ. Microleakage of four different restorative glass ionomer formulations in class V cavities: Er:YAG laser versus conventional preparation. Photomed Laser Surg, 26: 541–549, 2008. 23. Kidd EA. Microleakage: a review. J Dent, 4: 199–206, 1976.

24. Taylor MJ, Lynch E. Microleakage. J Dent, 20: 3–10, 1992.

25. Sidhu SK. A comparative analysis of techniques of restoring cervical lesions. Quintessence Int, 24: 553–559, 1993.

26. Iwami Y, Yamamoto H, Ebisu S. A new electrical method for detecting marginal leakage of in vitro resin restorations. J Dent, 28: 241–247, 2000.

27. Yap AU, Mok BY. Reinforced glass-ionomer cements: the influence of conditioners on marginal leakage. J Oral Rehabil, 24: 477–481, 1997.

28. Ceballos L, Osorio R, Toledano M, Marshall GW. Microleakage of composite restorations after acid or Er-YAG laser cavity treatments. Dent Mater, 17: 340–346, 2001.

29. Hallett KB, Garcia-Godoy F. Microleakage of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations: an in vitro study. Dent Mater, 9: 306–311, 1993.

30. Swanson TK, Feigal RJ, Tantbirojn D, Hodges JS. Effect of adhesive systems and bevel on enamel margin integrity in primary and permanent teeth. Pediatr Dent, 30: 134–140, 2008.

31. McLean JW. Clinical applications of glass-ionomer cements. Oper Dent, Suppl 5: 184–190, 1992.

32. Mount GJ. Glass ionomers: a review of their current status. Oper Dent, 24: 115–124, 1999.

33. Marquezan M, Fagundes TC, Toledano M, Navarro MF, Osorio R. Differential bonds degradation of two resin-modified glass-ionomer cements in primary and permanent teeth. J Dent, 37: 857–864, 2009.

34. Ceballos L, Camejo DG, Victoria Fuentes M, Osorio R, Toledano M, Carvalho RM, Pashley DH. Microtensile bond strength of total-etch and self-etching adhesives to caries-affected dentine. J Dent, 31: 469–477, 2003.

35. Aguilar-Mendoza JA, Rosales-Leal JI, Rodríguez-Valverde MA, González-López S, Cabrerizo-Vílchez MA. Wettability and bonding of self-etching dental adhesives. Influence of the smear layer. Dent Mater, 24: 994–1000, 2008.

36. Owens BM, Johnson WW. Effect of single step adhesives on the marginal permeability of Class V resin composites. Oper Dent, 32: 67–72, 2007.

37. Van Landuyt KL, De Munck J, Snauwaert J, Coutinho E, Poitevin A, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Peumans M, Suzuki K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Monomer-solvent phase separation in one-step self-etch adhesives. J Dent Res, 84: 183–188, 2005.

38. Reis A, Albuquerque M, Pegoraro M, Mattei G, Bauer JR, Grande RH, Klein-Junior CA, Baumhardt-Neto R, Loguercio AD. Can the durability of one-step self-etch adhesives be improved by double application or by an extra layer of hydrophobic resin? J Dent, 36: 309–315, 2008.

39. Cadenaro M, Antoniolli F, Sauro S, Tay FR, Di Lenarda R, Prati C, Biasotto M, Contardo L, Breschi L. Degree of conversion and permeability of dental adhesives. Eur J Oral Sci, 113: 525–530, 2005.

40. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Van Meerbeek B. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res, 84: 118–132, 2005.

41. Eick JD, Gwinnett AJ, Pashley DH, Robinson SJ. Current concepts on adhesion to dentin. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med, 8: 306–335, 1997.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

PubMed (MEDLINE) PubMed comprises more than 35 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top