An In-Vitro Study of Microleakage Around Class V Cavities Bonded with a Self-Etching Material Versus a Conventional Two-Bottle System

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the microleakage around class V restorations restored with either a self-etching adhesive system or a conventional two-bottle adhesive system used with ‘total etch’ technique, and their recommended resin-based composites (RBC).

Methods

Two types of adhesive systems were used. A self-etching adhesive, Etch and Prime 3.0 (Degussa AG, Hanau, Germany), and a conventional two-bottle adhesive, Gluma Solid Bond (Heraeus Kulzer, Dormagen, Germany). The bonding systems were used in strict accordance with the manufacturers’ instructions, except that, with the two-bottle adhesive system, the cavities were filled with either a ‘wet’ or a ‘dry’ bonding technique, subsequent to acid-etching with 20% phosphoric acid. Etch & Prime 3.0 was used in conjunction with Degufill Mineral (Degussa, Hanau, Germany) RBC and Gluma Solid Bond with Flow Line RBC (Heraeus Kulzer, Dormagen, Germany). Standardised bucco-cervical cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 15 extracted maxillary first premolar teeth; all cavity margins were in enamel. Ten of the resulting cavities (Group A) were restored using Etch & Prime 3.0 and Degufill Mineral, ten (Group B) using Gluma Solid Bond (Wet Bond), and ten (Group C) using Gluma Solid Bond (Dry Bond). Leakage scores at occlusal and gingival margins were calculated after thermocycling 500 times between baths, held at 5°C and 55°C, respectively, with 30 seconds dwell time in both. Data were analysed by the Fisher Exact Test.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference between the self-etching adhesive and conventional two-bottle adhesive systems at either the occlusal or the gingival margins. With the self-etching adhesive, there was no statistically significant difference in leakage scores between occlusal and gingival margins. There was a statistically significant difference between the occlusal and the gingival margins when a ‘wet’ or ‘dry’ bonding technique was used with the conventional two-bottle adhesive system.

Conclusions

The results suggest that the application of a conventional two-bottle bonding system used with a ‘total etch’ technique is better than that of a self-etching adhesive system. With the former, the use of a ‘wet’ bonding does not give better results than a ‘dry’ bonding technique.