Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Marginal leakage of filled dentin adhesives used with wet and dry bonding techniques.
Am J Dent. 2000 Apr; 13(2):93-7.AJ

Abstract

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of wet and dry bonding on microleakage of Class V restorations bonded with three filled bonding agents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty extracted human premolar and molar teeth were randomly assigned to five groups for bonding with OptiBond Solo, PermaQuick PQI, Prime & Bond NT (one coat), Prime & Bond NT (two coats) and Prime & Bond 2.1, as a control material. Cavities were cut in both the buccal and lingual surfaces. Half of each preparation was in enamel and the other was in cementum/dentin. The cavities were restored with resin-based composite after the application of dentin bonding agents using a wet and dry technique for each material. The teeth were stored in distilled water for 6 days at 37 degrees C, thermocycled, and the restorations examined microscopically for leakage using Procion Brilliant Red as a marker.

RESULTS

All groups showed microleakage at both the enamel and dentin margins. At the gingival margin, there was a significant difference between the groups for wet bonding (P = 0.0349) but not for dry bonding (P = 0.9983) (Kruskal-Wallis test). There was no significant difference between the groups at the enamel margin (wet bonding: P = 0.9999, dry-bonding: P = 0.9304) (Kruskal-Wallis test). The wet-bonding technique was compared with the dry-bonding technique for each material at both the gingival and enamel margins and no significant differences were observed (in all cases P > 0.5) (Mann-Whitney U-test).

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Conservative Dentistry, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Language

eng

PubMed ID

11764834

Citation

Santini, A, et al. "Marginal Leakage of Filled Dentin Adhesives Used With Wet and Dry Bonding Techniques." American Journal of Dentistry, vol. 13, no. 2, 2000, pp. 93-7.
Santini A, Plasschaert AJ, Mitchell S. Marginal leakage of filled dentin adhesives used with wet and dry bonding techniques. Am J Dent. 2000;13(2):93-7.
Santini, A., Plasschaert, A. J., & Mitchell, S. (2000). Marginal leakage of filled dentin adhesives used with wet and dry bonding techniques. American Journal of Dentistry, 13(2), 93-7.
Santini A, Plasschaert AJ, Mitchell S. Marginal Leakage of Filled Dentin Adhesives Used With Wet and Dry Bonding Techniques. Am J Dent. 2000;13(2):93-7. PubMed PMID: 11764834.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Marginal leakage of filled dentin adhesives used with wet and dry bonding techniques. AU - Santini,A, AU - Plasschaert,A J, AU - Mitchell,S, PY - 2002/1/5/pubmed PY - 2002/2/13/medline PY - 2002/1/5/entrez SP - 93 EP - 7 JF - American journal of dentistry JO - Am J Dent VL - 13 IS - 2 N2 - PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of wet and dry bonding on microleakage of Class V restorations bonded with three filled bonding agents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty extracted human premolar and molar teeth were randomly assigned to five groups for bonding with OptiBond Solo, PermaQuick PQI, Prime & Bond NT (one coat), Prime & Bond NT (two coats) and Prime & Bond 2.1, as a control material. Cavities were cut in both the buccal and lingual surfaces. Half of each preparation was in enamel and the other was in cementum/dentin. The cavities were restored with resin-based composite after the application of dentin bonding agents using a wet and dry technique for each material. The teeth were stored in distilled water for 6 days at 37 degrees C, thermocycled, and the restorations examined microscopically for leakage using Procion Brilliant Red as a marker. RESULTS: All groups showed microleakage at both the enamel and dentin margins. At the gingival margin, there was a significant difference between the groups for wet bonding (P = 0.0349) but not for dry bonding (P = 0.9983) (Kruskal-Wallis test). There was no significant difference between the groups at the enamel margin (wet bonding: P = 0.9999, dry-bonding: P = 0.9304) (Kruskal-Wallis test). The wet-bonding technique was compared with the dry-bonding technique for each material at both the gingival and enamel margins and no significant differences were observed (in all cases P > 0.5) (Mann-Whitney U-test). SN - 0894-8275 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/11764834/Marginal_leakage_of_filled_dentin_adhesives_used_with_wet_and_dry_bonding_techniques_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -