Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2013; 07(S 01): S060-S065
DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.119075
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Effect of operator variability on microleakage with different adhesive systems

Emel Karaman
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkiye
,
A. Ruya Yazici
2   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkiye
,
Burak Aksoy
3   Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkiye
,
Erdem Karabulut
4   Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkiye
,
Gul Ozgunaltay
2   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkiye
,
Berrin Dayangac
2   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkiye
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 September 2019 (online)

  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of operator variability on microleakage with different adhesive systems. Materials and Methods: A total of 180 standardized Class V cavities were prepared on facial and lingual of 90 extracted human premolar teeth and randomly assigned to five groups according to the adhesive systems used (n = 36): Prime and Bond NT (PB), Single Bond (SB), Futura Bond NR, Xeno III (XE) and Adper Prompt-L-Pop (LP). The adhesive groups were then further subdivided into three operator groups according to level of clinical experience (n = 12): An undergraduate student, a research assistant and a faculty member. All cavities were restored with same composite resin. The restored teeth were thermocycled (500 cycles, 5-55°C) then immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin and measured for leakage under a stereomicroscope. Statistical analyses were performed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: Significant inter-operator variation was found in the enamel margins in the XE group with significantly higher microleakage when used by the undergraduate student (p < 0.05). Although no significant differences in microleakage were found between adhesive systems for the research assistant and faculty member (p > 0.05), significant differences were observed between PB and LP, PB and XE, SB and LP and SB and XE in the enamel margins for the undergraduate student (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Microleakage of adhesive systems is more dependent on interactions between the operator and adhesive material than on the choice of adhesive material.

Key words:

Dentin bonding - microleakage - operator variability
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Celik C, Arhun N, Yamanel K. Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: 12-month results. Eur J Dent 2010; 4: 57-65
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitão J. et al. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc 2007; 138: 775-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cenci M, Demarco F, de Carvalho R. Class II composite resin restorations with two polymerization techniques: Relationship between microtensile bond strength and marginal leakage. J Dent 2005; 33: 603-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: Not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 87-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 de Almeida JB, Platt JA, Oshida Y, Moore BK, Cochran MA, Eckert GJ. Three different methods to evaluate microleakage of packable composites in Class II restorations. Oper Dent 2003; 28: 453-60
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Shenoy A. Is it the end of the road for dental amalgam? A critical review. J Conserv Dent 2008; 11: 99-107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Franco EB, Gonzaga LopesL, Lia Mondelli RF, da Silva e Souza Jr MH, Pereira Lauris JR. Effect of the cavity configuration factor on the marginal microleakage of esthetic restorative materials. Am J Dent 2003; 16: 211-4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 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 2003; 28: 215-35
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M. et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: Methods and results. J Dent Res 2005; 84: 118-32
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Finger WJ, Tani C. Effect of application mode on bonding performance of self-etching adhesives. Am J Dent 2005; 18: 41-4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Carvalho RM, Chersoni S, Frankenberger R, Pashley DH, Prati C, Tay FR. A challenge to the conventional wisdom that simultaneous etching and resin infiltration always occurs in self-etch adhesives. Biomaterials 2005; 26: 1035-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Adebayo OA, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Bond strength test: Role of operator skill. Aust Dent J 2008; 53: 145-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Giachetti L, Scaminaci Russo D, Bertini F, Pierleoni F, Nieri M. Effect of operator skill in relation to microleakage of total-etch and self-etch bonding systems. J Dent 2007; 35: 289-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kucukesmen C, Sonmez H. Microleakage of class-v composite restorations with different bonding systems on fluorosed teeth. Eur J Dent 2008; 2: 48-58
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Karaarslan ES, Usumez A, Ozturk B, Cebe MA. Effect of cavity preparation techniques and different preheating procedures on microleakage of class V resin restorations. Eur J Dent 2012; 6: 87-94
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Giachetti L, Scaminaci Russo D, Bambi C, Nieri M, Bertini F. Influence of operator skill on microleakage of total-etch and self-etch bonding systems. J Dent 2008; 36: 49-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Jacobsen T, Söderholm KJ, Yang M, Watson TF. Effect of composition and complexity of dentin-bonding agents on operator variability - Analysis of gap formation using confocal microscopy. Eur J Oral Sci 2003; 111: 523-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Barnes DM, McDonald NJ, Thompson VP, Blank LW, Shires PJ. Microleakage in facial and lingual Class 5 composite restorations: A comparison. Oper Dent 1994; 19: 133-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Fróes-Salgado NR, Pfeifer CS, Francci CE, Kawano Y. Influence of photoactivation protocol and light guide distance on conversion and microleakage of composite restorations. Oper Dent 2009; 34: 408-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Price RB, Felix CM, Whalen JM. Factors affecting the energy delivered to simulated class I and class V preparations. J Can Dent Assoc 2010; 76: a94
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Manso AP, Marquezini Jr L, Silva SM, Pashley DH, Tay FR, Carvalho RM. Stability of wet versus dry bonding with different solvent-based adhesives. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 476-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Kaga M, Sano H, Endo K, Oguchi H. The extent to which resin can infiltrate dentin by acetone-based adhesives. J Dent Res 2002; 81: 74-8
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Jacobsen T, Söderholm KJ. Effect of primer solvent, primer agitation, and dentin dryness on shear bond strength to dentin. Am J Dent 1998; 11: 225-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Duke ES, Eick JD. et al. A TEM study of two water-based adhesive systems bonded to dry and wet dentin. J Dent Res 1998; 77: 50-9
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Tay FR, Gwinnett AJ, Wei SH. The overwet phenomenon: An optical, micromorphological study of surface moisture in the acid-conditioned, resin-dentin interface. Am J Dent 1996; 9: 43-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Miyazaki M, Onose H, Moore BK. Effect of operator variability on dentin bond strength of two-step bonding systems. Am J Dent 2000; 13: 101-4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Sano H, Kanemura N, Burrow MF, Inai N, Yamada T, Tagami J. Effect of operator variability on dentin adhesion: Students vs. dentists. Dent Mater J 1998; 17: 51-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar