Effect of the composite surface sealant application moment on marginal sealing of compactable composite resin restoration

The effect of surface sealants with different filler content on microleakage of Class V resin composite restorations

OBJECTIVE

Microleakage is still one of the most cited reasons for failure of resin composite restorations. Alternative methods to prevent microleakage have been investigated increasingly. The aim of this study is to evaluate the microleakage in Class V resin composite restorations with or without application of surface sealants with different filler content.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety-six cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces with the coronal margins located in enamel and the cervical margins located in dentin. The cavities restored with an adhesive system (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan) and resin composite (Clearfil Majesty ES-2, Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan). Teeth were stored in distilled water for 24 h and separated into four groups according to the surface sealants (Control, Fortify, Fortify Plus, and G-Coat Plus). The teeth were thermocycled (500 cycles, 5-55° C), immersed in basic fuchsine, sectioned, and analyzed for dye penetration using stereomicroscope. The data were submitted to statistical analysis by Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni-Dunn test.

RESULTS

The results of the study indicated that there was minimum leakage at the enamel margins of all groups. Bonferroni-Dunn tests revealed that Fortify and GC-Coat groups showed significantly less leakage than the Control group and the Fortify Plus group at dentin margins in lingual surfaces (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The all surface sealants used in this study eliminated microleakage at enamel margins. Moreover, unfilled or nanofilled surface sealants were the most effective in decreasing the degree of marginal microleakage at dentin margins. However, viscosity and penetrability of the sealants could be considered for sealing ability besides composition.

The effect of bonding and surface sealant application on postoperative sensitivity from posterior composites

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the postoperative sensitivity of posterior Class I composite restoration at short-term, restorated with two different all-in-one self-etch adhesives with or without surface sealant application.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

44 restorations were inserted in 11 patients who required Class I restorations in their molars. Each patient received 4 restorations, thus four groups were formed; (1) G-Aenial Bond (GC, Japan); (2) Clearfil S3 Bond (Kuraray, Japan); (3) G-Aenial Bond+Fortify Plus (Bisco, USA), (4) Clearfil S3 Bond+Fortify Plus. Sensitivity was evaluated at 24h, 7, 15, and 30 days using cold air, ice, and pressure stimuli using a visual analog scale. Comparisons of continuous variables between the sensitivity evaluations were performed using the Friedman's One-Way Analysis of Variance with repeated measures test (p<0.05).

RESULTS

The type of adhesive used and the application of a surface sealant had no significant effects in postoperative sensitivity (p>0.05). The use of Clearfil S3 Bond resulted in almost the same level of postoperative sensitivity as did the use of G-Aenial Bond. The highest sensitivity scores were observed for the surface sealant applied teeth without any statistical significance (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Self etch adhesives displayed postoperative sensitivity. The sensitivity scores slightly decreased at the end of 30 days (p>0.05). Surface sealant application did not result in a decrease in sensitivity scores for either dentin adhesives.

Influence of adhesive application methods and rebonding agent application on sealing effectiveness of all-in-one self-etching adhesives

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The choice of adhesive application methods could affect the microleakage of self-etch adhesives.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of acid-etching, doubling adhesive application time, doubling adhesive coating, and rebonding agent application on microleakage of self-etch adhesives in Class V cavities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy human third molars with Class V cavities assigned to five groups according to different adhesive application protocols for the three dentin adhesives (Clearfil S3 Bond, Kuraray Medical, Okayama, Japan; Optibond All-in-One, Kerr Corporation Orange, CA, USA; G-Aenial Bond, GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan): group 1, manufacturer's recommendations; group 2, prior acid-etching of cavities; group 3, double application time; group 4, two consecutive coats of the adhesives; group 5, rebonding application on restoration margins. After bonding, the cavities were filled with a resin composite (Filtek Supreme XT, 3M ESPE Dental Products, St. Paul, MN, USA). The teeth were thermocycled, and the specimens were examined for microleakage using methylene blue as a marker.

RESULTS

For Clearfil S3 Bond and Optibond All-in-One, microleakage in groups 2 and 5 were significantly lower than other groups' enamel margins. In groups 1, 2, 4, and 5, Clearfil S3 Bond exhibited significantly more leakage than the other dentin bonding agents in dentin margins. Microleakage was significantly higher on dentinal margins compared with the enamel margins for Clearfil S3 Bond in all of the groups. Optibond All-in-One showed significantly lower microleakage in dentin margins in all groups except groups 2 and 5.

CONCLUSION

Acid-etching usually promoted the reduction of microleakage in enamel margins. On the other hand, rebonding application usually contributed to the reduction of microleakage more than other methods in enamel and dentin margins.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Acid-etching or rebonding application may contribute to reduction of microleakage of all-in-one self-etching adhesives.

Effect of different surface penetrating sealants on the roughness of a nanofiller composite resin

This study evaluated the effectiveness of different sealants applied to a nanofiller composite resin. Forty specimens of Filtek Z-350 were obtained after inserting the material in a 6x3 mm stainless steel mold followed by light activation for 20 s. The groups were divided (n=10) according to the surface treatment applied: Control group (no surface treatment), Fortify, Fortify Plus and Biscover LV. The specimens were subjected to simulated toothbrushing using a 200 g load and 250 strokes/min to simulate 1 week, 1, 3 and 6 months and 1 and 3 years in the mouth, considering 10,000 cycles equivalent to 1 year of toothbrushing. Oral-B soft-bristle-tip toothbrush heads and Colgate Total dentifrice at a 1:2 water-dilution were used. After each simulated time, surface roughness was assessed in random triplicate readings. The data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test at a 95% confidence level. The specimens were observed under scanning electron microscopy (SEM) after each toothbrushing cycle. The control group was not significantly different (p>0.05) from the other groups, except for Fortify Plus (p<0.05), which was rougher. No significant differences (p>0.05) were observed at the 1-month assessment between the experimental and control groups. Fortify and Fortify Plus presented a rougher surface over time, differing from the baseline (p<0.05). Biscover LV did not differ (p>0.05) from the baseline at any time. None of the experimental groups showed a significantly better performance (p>0.05) than the control group at any time. SEM confirmed the differences found during the roughness testing. Surface penetrating sealants did not improve the roughness of nanofiller composite resin.

The role of surface sealants in the roughness of composites after a simulated toothbrushing test

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the influence of two surface sealants (BisCover/Single Bond) and three application techniques (unsealed/conventional/co-polymerization) on the roughness of two composites (Filtek Z250/Z350) after the toothbrushing test.

METHODS

Seventy-two rectangular specimens (5 mm x10 mm x 3 mm) were fabricated and assigned into 12 groups (n=6). Each sample was subjected to three random roughness readings at baseline, after 100,000 (intermediate), and 200,000 (final) toothbrushing strokes. Roughness (R) at each stage was obtained by the arithmetic mean of the reading of each specimen. Sealant removal was qualitatively examined (optical microscope) and classified into scores (0-3). Data were analyzed by Student's paired t-test, two-way ANOVA/Tukey's test, and by Wilcoxon, Kruskal-Wallis and Miller's test (alpha=0.05).

RESULTS

Z250 groups at baseline did not differ statistically from each other. Unsealed Z350 at baseline had lower R values. All the unsealed groups presented gradual decrease in R from baseline to final brushing. From baseline to the intermediate stage, Z250 co-polymerized groups presented a significant reduction in R (score 3). Conventionally sealed groups had no significant changes in R (scores 2-0.8). From baseline to the intermediate stage, the conventionally sealed Z350 Single Bond group had an increase in R (score 1.5). In the final stage, all the conventionally sealed groups presented a reduction in R (scores 0.7-0). Co-polymerized Single Bond groups had a significant reduction in R (scores 2.5-2.7), and co-polymerized BisCover groups an increase in R (scores 2.8-3).

CONCLUSIONS

At any brushing stage, sealed composites presented superior performance when compared with unsealed composites.