Effects of different types of adhesive systems on the microleakage of compomer restorations in Class V cavities prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser in primary teeth

Creative Commons License

BAYGIN Ö., KORKMAZ F. M., ARSLAN I.

DENTAL MATERIALS JOURNAL, vol.31, no.2, pp.206-214, 2012 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 31 Issue: 2
  • Publication Date: 2012
  • Doi Number: 10.4012/dmj.2011-133
  • Journal Name: DENTAL MATERIALS JOURNAL
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Page Numbers: pp.206-214
  • Keywords: Adhesive systems, Compomer, Er, Cr:YSGG laser, Microleakage, Primary teeth, ER-YAG LASER, DENTIN BOND STRENGTH, COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS, MICROSCOPIC EVALUATION, ENAMEL, BUR, IRRADIATION, INTERFACE, DRY, MORPHOLOGY
  • Karadeniz Technical University Affiliated: Yes

Abstract

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effects of different types of adhesive systems on the microleakage of compomer restorations in Class V cavities prepared by erbium, chromium: yttrium scandium gallium garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG) laser. There were five test groups according to the type of adhesive applied to the cavities: Adper Single Bond 2 (Group 1), Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus (Group 2), Xeno III (Group 3), Clearfil Protect Bond (Group 4), Prime&Bond NT (Group 5). Dye penetration was evaluated under a stereomicroscope, and data were statistically analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks tests. Gingival margins showed significantly higher microleakage than occlusal margins in all the test groups (p<0.05). Groups 1 and 2 showed significantly less microleakage than Group 5 (p<0.05), and there were no statistically significant differences among Groups 3, 4, and 5 (p>0.05). None of the dentin bonding agents eliminated microleakage completely, and higher microleakage scores were observed along the gingival margin than the occlusal margin.