The Effects of Dentin Adhesives and Liner Materials on the Microleakage of Class II Resin Composite Restorations in Primary and Permanent Teeth

To compare the occlusal and gingival microleakage of Class-II composite restorations utilizing etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives and different liner materials in primary and permanent teeth. Study design: Standardized class-II cavities were prepared in freshly-extracted sound primary and permanent molars (n=80/each), with all cavosurface margins involving enamel. The main experimental groups were; A. Single Bond 2/primary teeth; B. Adper SE Plus/primary teeth; C. Single Bond 2/permanent teeth; and D. Adper SE Plus/permanent teeth. Each group comprised 4 subgroups (n=10/each) with respect to the liner material employed (n=10/subgroup): 1. Fuji VII; 2. Fuji Triage; 3. Filtek Supreme XT Flowable Composite, and 4. No liner. All teeth were restored with Filtek Supreme XT Universal Nanofilled Composite. Following thermocycling and immersion in basic fuchsin, the extent of microleakage was measured on crown sections using image analysis. The data were analyzed with Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test, Mann-Whitney U-Test and Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA at α=0.05. Results: In both primary and permanent teeth the use of etch-and-rinse adhesive resulted in similar occlusal and gingival microleakage values (p>0.05). As for the self-etch adhesive, similar results were observed (p>0.05) with the exception of significantly less occlusal leakage in the Fuji Triage VII and Fuji Triage subgroups of primary teeth than those of permanent teeth (p<0.05). When the effects of liner material and the type of adhesive were disregarded, significantly more gingival microleakage was observed in primary teeth than in permanent teeth (p<0.01), while the occlusal microleakage values were similar (p>0.05). Irrespective of the tooth type and adhesive material, comparison of subgroups containing a liner material with those without one revealed no significant differences for both occlusal and gingival microleakage values (p>0.05). Conclusions: Occlusal microleakage was similar in both primary and permanent teeth, while a lesser extent of gingival seal was observed in primary teeth. Overall, placement of a liner material did not improve resistance to microleakage.

microleakage, quantitative, etch-and-rinse adhesives, self-etch adhesives

1. Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift EJ, Jr., Stamatiades P, Wilkerson M. A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc 129: 567-577, 1998.

2. Brannstrom M. Communication between the oral cavity and the dental pulp associated with restorative treatment. Oper Dent 9: 57-68, 1984.

3. Dejou J, Sindres V, Camps J. Influence of criteria on the results of in vitro evaluation of microleakage. Dent Mater 12: 342-349, 1996.

4. Attar N, Tam LE, McComb D. Flow, strength, stiffness and radiopacity of flowable resin composites. J Can Dent Assoc 69: 516-521, 2003.

5. Labella R, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G. Polymerization shrinkage and elasticity of flowable composites and filled adhesives. Dent Mater 15: 128-137, 1999.

6. Leevailoj C, Cochran MA, Matis BA, Moore BK, Platt JA. Microleakage of posterior packable resin composites with and without flowable liners. Oper Dent 26: 302-307, 2001.

7. Attar N, Turgut MD, Gungor HC. The effect of flowable resin composites as gingival increments on the microleakage of posterior resin composites. Oper Dent 29: 162-167, 2004.

8. Tredwin CJ, Stokes A, Moles DR. Influence of flowable liner and margin location on microleakage of conventional and packable class II resin composites. Oper Dent 30: 32-38, 2005.

9. Momoi Y, McCabe JF. Fluoride release from light-activated glass ionomer restorative cements. Dent Mater 9: 151-154, 1993.

10. Yoshida Y, Van Meerbeek B, Nakayama Y, Snauwaert J, Hellemans L, Lambrechts P, et al. Evidence of chemical bonding at biomaterial-hard tissue interfaces. J Dent Res 79: 709-714, 2000.

11. Sidhu SK. Sealing effectiveness of light-cured glass ionomer cement liners. J Prosthet Dent 68: 891-894, 1992.

12. Cardoso MV, de Almeida Neves A, Mine A, Coutinho E, Van Landuyt K, De Munck J, et al. Current aspects on bonding effectiveness and stability in adhesive dentistry. Aust Dent J 56 Suppl 1: 31-44, 2011.

13. Pamir T, Turkun M. Factors affecting microleakage of a packable resin composite: an in vitro study. Oper Dent 30: 338-345, 2005.

14. Yazici AR, Celik C, Ozgunaltay G. Microleakage of different resin composite types. Quintessence Int 35: 790-794, 2004.

15. Wilson PR, Beynon AD. Mineralization differences between human deciduous and permanent enamel measured by quantitative microradiography. Arch Oral Biol 34: 85-88, 1989.

16. Mjor IA, Nordahl I. The density and branching of dentinal tubules in human teeth. Arch Oral Biol 41: 401-412, 1996.

17. 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.

18. Raskin A, Tassery H, D’Hoore W, Gonthier S, Vreven J, Degrange M, et al. Influence of the number of sections on reliability of in vitro microleakage evaluations. Am J Dent 16: 207-210, 2003.

19. Kasraei S, Azarsina M, Majidi S. In vitro comparison of microleakage of posterior resin composites with and without liner using two-step etch-andrinse and self-etch dentin adhesive systems. Oper Dent 36: 213-221, 2011.

20. Araujo Fde O, Vieira LC, Monteiro Junior S. Influence of resin composite shade and location of the gingival margin on the microleakage of posterior restorations. Oper Dent 31: 556-561, 2006.

21. Casagrande L, Brayner R, Barata JS, de Araujo FB. Cervical microleakage in composite restorations of primary teeth - in vitro study. J Dent 33: 627-632, 2005.

22. Sabel N. Enamel of primary teeth--morphological and chemical aspects. Swed Dent J Suppl 1-77, 72p preceding i, 2012.

23. Pashley DH, Tay FR. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching adhesives. Part II: etching effects on unground enamel. Dent Mater 17: 430-444, 2001.

24. Perdigao J, Geraldeli S. Bonding characteristics of self-etching adhesives to intact versus prepared enamel. J Esthet Restor Dent 15: 32-41; discussion 42, 2003.

25. Whittaker DK. Structural variations in the surface zone of human tooth enamel observed by scanning electron microscopy. Arch Oral Biol 27: 383-392, 1982.

26. Kodaka T, Nakajima F, Kuroiwa M. Distribution patterns of the surface “prismless” enamel in human deciduous incisors. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll 30: 9-19, 1989.

27. Bowen RL, Nemoto K, Rapson JE. Adhesive bonding of various materials to hard tooth tissues: forces developing in composite materials during hardening. J Am Dent Assoc 106: 475-477, 1983.

28. Prabhakar AR, Madan M, Raju OS. The marginal seal of a flowable composite, an injectable resin modified glass ionomer and a compomer in primary molars--an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 21: 45-48, 2003.

29. Borsatto MC, Corona SA, Chinelatti MA, Ramos RP, de Sa Rocha RA, Pecora JD, et al. Comparison of marginal microleakage of flowable composite restorations in primary molars prepared by high-speed carbide bur, Er:YAG laser, and air abrasion. J Dent Child (Chic) 73: 122-126, 2006.

30. De Munck J, Vargas M, Iracki J, Van Landuyt K, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, et al. One-day bonding effectiveness of new self-etch adhesives to bur-cut enamel and dentin. Oper Dent 30: 39-49, 2005.

31. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 28: 215-235, 2003.

32. Armstrong SR, Vargas MA, Fang Q, Laffoon JE. Microtensile bond strength of a total-etch 3-step, total-etch 2-step, self-etch 2-step, and a self-etch 1-step dentin bonding system through 15-month water storage. J Adhes Dent 5: 47-56, 2003.

33. Inoue S, Vargas MA, Abe Y, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, et al. Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to enamel. Am J Dent 16: 329-334, 2003.

34. Marquezan M, da Silveira BL, Burnett LH, Jr., Rodrigues CR, Kramer PF. Microtensile bond strength of contemporary adhesives to primary enamel and dentin. J Clin Pediatr Dent 32: 127-132, 2008.

35. Goracci C, Sadek FT, Monticelli F, Cardoso PE, Ferrari M. Microtensile bond strength of self-etching adhesives to enamel and dentin. J Adhes Dent 6: 313-318, 2004.

36. Erickson RL, Barkmeier WW, Latta MA. The role of etching in bonding to enamel: a comparison of self-etching and etch-and-rinse adhesive systems. Dent Mater 25: 1459-1467, 2009.

37. Manuja N, Nagpal R, Pandit IK. Dental adhesion: mechanism, techniques and durability. J Clin Pediatr Dent 36: 223-234, 2012.

38. Nor JE, Feigal RJ, Dennison JB, Edwards CA. Dentin bonding: SEM comparison of the resin-dentin interface in primary and permanent teeth. J Dent Res 75: 1396-1403, 1996.

39. Bordin-Aykroyd S, Sefton J, Davies EH. In vitro bond strengths of three current dentin adhesives to primary and permanent teeth. Dent Mater 8: 74-78, 1992.

40. da Silva Telles PD, Aparecida M, Machado M, Nor JE. SEM study of a self-etching primer adhesive system used for dentin bonding in primary and permanent teeth. Pediatr Dent 23: 315-320, 2001.

41. Powers JM, O’Keefe KL, Pinzon LM. Factors affecting in vitro bond strength of bonding agents to human dentin. Odontology 91: 1-6, 2003.

42. Korkmaz Y, Ozel E, Attar N. Effect of flowable composite lining on microleakage and internal voids in Class II composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 9: 189-194, 2007.

43. Brown KB, Swartz ML, Cochran MA, Phillips RW. The glass-ionomer-lined cervical composite restoration: an in vitro investigation. Oper Dent 18: 17-27, 1993.

44. Sidhu SK, Henderson LJ. In vitro marginal leakage of cervical composite restorations lined with a light-cured glass ionomer. Oper Dent 17: 7-12, 1992.

45. Bouillaguet S, Ciucchi B, Jacoby T, Wataha JC, Pashley D. Bonding characteristics to dentin walls of class II cavities, in vitro. Dent Mater 17: 316-321, 2001.

46. Stavridakis MM, Dietschi D, Krejci I. Polymerization shrinkage of flowable resin-based restorative materials. Oper Dent 30: 118-128, 2005.

47. Neme AM, Maxson BB, Pink FE, Aksu MN. Microleakage of Class II packable resin composites lined with flowables: an in vitro study. Oper Dent 27: 600-605, 2002.

48. Aboushala A, Kugel G, Hurley E. Class II composite resin restorations using glass-ionomer liners: microleakage studies. J Clin Pediatr Dent 21: 67-70, 1996.