The journal of contemporary dental practice · 2015
Evaluation of the influence of three different temperatures on microleakage of two self-etch and one total-etch adhesives.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Akbarian Sahar, Sharafeddin Farahnaz, Akbarian Golsa
Аннотация
AIM: To evaluate the bonding temperature effect on dentin-restoration microleakage. The null hypothesis of the study is that the score of microleakage is identical among different adhesive bondings at different temperatures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety caries free maxillary premolars were selected. Class V cavities were prepared on the cemento enamel junction (CEJ) of the buccal sides with enamel margins on occlusal sides and cementum margins on gingival sides. The specimens were divided into 3 groups: G1, single bond adhesive + Z250 composite; G2, P90 adhesive + Filtek Silorane composite; and G3, Clearfil SE bond + Clearfil APX. All groups were divided into three subgroups based on the adhesive temperature: A-4°C; B-25°C; and C-40°C. After coating the specimens with nail polish 1 mm beyond the margin of the restorations, they were stored in 0.5% basic Fuchsin dye solution for 24 hours. The teeth then were buccolingually sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference between microleakage of occlusal and gingival margins in each group. Clearfil SE bond and Adper single bond displayed lower microleakage than P90 adhesive at 4°C and 25°C. The most and least microleakage score for Adper single bond was at 40°C and 25°C respectively. Clearfil SE bond showed less microleakage at 25°C than 4°C and 40°C.
CONCLUSION: Clearfil SE bond and Adper single bond displayed less microleakage at 25°C while there was no significant difference among for P90 adhesive microleakage at three temperatures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety caries free maxillary premolars were selected. Class V cavities were prepared on the cemento enamel junction (CEJ) of the buccal sides with enamel margins on occlusal sides and cementum margins on gingival sides. The specimens were divided into 3 groups: G1, single bond adhesive + Z250 composite; G2, P90 adhesive + Filtek Silorane composite; and G3, Clearfil SE bond + Clearfil APX. All groups were divided into three subgroups based on the adhesive temperature: A-4°C; B-25°C; and C-40°C. After coating the specimens with nail polish 1 mm beyond the margin of the restorations, they were stored in 0.5% basic Fuchsin dye solution for 24 hours. The teeth then were buccolingually sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference between microleakage of occlusal and gingival margins in each group. Clearfil SE bond and Adper single bond displayed lower microleakage than P90 adhesive at 4°C and 25°C. The most and least microleakage score for Adper single bond was at 40°C and 25°C respectively. Clearfil SE bond showed less microleakage at 25°C than 4°C and 40°C.
CONCLUSION: Clearfil SE bond and Adper single bond displayed less microleakage at 25°C while there was no significant difference among for P90 adhesive microleakage at three temperatures.