Effect of surface pretreatment with two desensitizer techniques on the microleakage of resin composite restorations

Comparative evaluation of desensitizing agents on shear bond strength of zirconia to dentin

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the effect of 7 different desensitizing agents on the shear bond strength (SBS) of zirconia restorations to dentin with a self-adhesive resin cement and determine the failure modes.

METHODS

Eighty molars' occlusal surfaces were ground to expose dentin and were randomly divided into 8 groups (n = 10): 1. Gluma (HEMA/Glutaraldehyde) 2. Bifluoride (Sodium Fluoride/Calcium Fluoride) 3. Admira (Bis-GMA/HEMA) 4. Smart Protect (Glutaraldehyde) 5. Teethmate (Tetracalcium phosphate, Dicalcium phosphate) 6. Clinpro White (Sodium fluoride) 7. BisBlock (Oxalic acid) and 8. Control (No-treatment). After applying the agent, a self-adhesive resin cement (Rely-X U200) was used to lute zirconia discs (4 mm height and 4 mm diameter) to dentin. After stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 h, all groups were thermocycled for 2500 cycles between 5 ± 2 °C and 55 ± 2 °C. Specimens were submitted to SBS test with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min until failure. SBS values were compared with ANOVA. Post-hoc multiple comparisons were performed with Dunnett T3. The failure modes of specimens were examined with stereomicroscope at a magnification of 20X and the distribution of the failure modes were evaluated with Pearson Chi-Square test.

RESULTS

Regarding mean SBS values in MPa's; Admira (10.70 ± 3.99), Smart Protect (9.62 ± 3.93), and Gluma (8.90 ± 3.76) treatments showed higher SBS values compared to control group (p < .05) according to ANOVA. The SBS values of Teethmate (5.31 ± 2.37) and Clinpro White (4.32 ± 2.44) were higher than control group but the difference was not found significant (p > .05). BisBlock (2.33 ± 1.94) and Bifluouride (1.60 ± 1.47) groups showed the lowest SBS values but their difference between control group was not found statistically significant (p > .05). Most specimens showed adhesive failure but no statistically significant difference was found in the distributions of failure modes according to Chi-square test.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitation of the study; Admira, Smart Protect, and Gluma increased the SBS of the zirconia restorations to dentin and can be recommended to use on prepared dentin surfaces prior to the cementation.

Microleakage of "Bulk-Fill" Composite Resin for Class II Restorations Pretreated With CO2 Laser in Deciduous Molars: An In Vitro Study

Introduction: Microleakage has been reported to cause dentin hypersensitivity because of the passage of bacteria and their products through the restoration-tooth interface and is one of the main reasons for replacement of restorations. CO₂ laser can be used for treatment of dentin hypersensitivity. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate in vitro the microleakage in composite restorations following surface pretreatment with acid etching and CO₂ laser. Methods: Twelve human caries-free primary molars were selected. Class II cavities were prepared on occlusal mesial and occlusal distal surfaces. Specimens were randomly divided into four groups (n=6): Group 1 (G1) - 37% phosphoric acid gel etching + Beautiful-Bulk Restorative - Giomer (Shofu Inc); Group 2 (G2) - 37% phosphoric acid gel etching + SDR Bulk-Fill Flow (Dentsply); Group 3 (G3) - CO₂ laser irradiation + Beautiful-Bulk Restorative - Giomer (Shofu Inc); Group 4 (G4) - CO₂ laser irradiation + SDR Bulk-Fill Flow (Dentsply). Surfaces were restored with bonding agent (Natural Bond DE, DFL). Specimens were cut longitudinally and immersed in 0.5% methylene blue solution for 4 hours. Microleakage scores were assessed under a magnifying glass at x3,5 and qualitatively analyzed by scanning electron microscope (SEM). Data were analyzed using nonparametric Wilcoxon test (P < 0.05). Results: Scores prevailed between 0 and 2, however, no statistically significant difference was found among the groups (P = 0.05). Conclusion: It could be concluded that all composite resins bulk fill did not show significant difference among them regarding microleakage using either CO₂ laser or 37% phosphoric acid etching.

Microleakage in Class V Composite Restorations after Desensitizing Surface Treatment with Er:YAG and CO2 Lasers

Aims: Glutaraldehyde, CO₂ and Er:YAG lasers can be used for treatment of dentin hypersensitivity. However, their application may have adverse effects on the clinical service of restorations. This study aimed to assess the microleakage in composite restorations following surface treatment with Glutaraldehyde desensitizer, CO₂ and Er:YAG laser irradiation for treatment of dentin hypersensitivity. Materials and methods: This experimental study was conducted on 60 extracted sound human teeth. Class V cavities were prepared measuring 3×3 mm using a diamond bur. Specimens were randomly divided into 4 groups of 15. Group one:no surface treatment, Group two:applying Glutaraldehyde desensitizer, Groups of three and four were irradiated with CO₂ and Er:YAG lasers, respectively. Surfaces were restored with bonding agent (Single Bond 2, 3M, USA) and Z250 composite (3M, USA). Specimens were thermocycled and immersed in 1% methylene blue solution for 24 hours. Microleakage scores were assessed under a stereomicroscope at ×20 magnification. Data were analyzed using SPSS and the Kruskal Wallis test (P=0.05). Results: There was no significant difference between microleakage of groups in enamel margins (P=0.694). The difference in microleakage at the dentin margin was significant between groups (P=0.018). Conclusions: Application of Glutaraldehyde-desensitizer and CO₂ laser irradiation of surfaces prior to composite restoration do not increase microleakage at the enamel or dentin margins but tooth surface treatment with Er:YAG laser significantly increased the microleakage at the dentin margins.