Influence of cavity dimensions, insertion technique and adhesive system on microleakage of Class V restorations

Carmem Pfeifer, Roberto Ruggiero Braga, Paulo Eduardo Capel Cardoso

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background. The authors evaluated the influence of cavity dimensions, insertion technique and adhesive system on microleakage of Class V composite restorations. Methods. The authors prepared cylindrical cavities with enamel margins of 3-millimeter diameter by 1-mm depth or 6-mm diameter by 2-mm depth on the labial surface of bovine incisors. They defined experimental groups (n = 15) according to cavity size, insertion technique (bulk or incremental) and adhesive system applied (Single Bond, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minn., or Excite, Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, N.Y.). They restored preparations with Tetric Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent). After 36 hours' storage in distilled water at 37 C, specimens were submitted to microleakage using 50 percent silver nitrate as tracer. Teeth were sectioned twice and dye penetration on the axial wall was determined in millimeters. Results. The authors analyzed the data using analysis of variance/Tukey test (α = .05). For large restorations, the use of Single Bond resulted in higher microleakage than Excite (1.56 ± standard deviation [SD] 0.26 mm and 0.63 ± SD 0.56 mm, respectively; P <.001), whereas for small restorations there was no statistical difference between adhesives (Excite: 0.47 ± SD 0.28 mm; Single Bond: 0.46 ± SD 0.28 mm). Conclusion. The choice of adhesive system influenced microleakage only for large restorations. Incremental insertion of the composite did not affect dye penetration. Clinical Implications. Microleakage of composite restorations cannot be predicted only on the basis of the restorations' dimensions. In large restorations, it also depends on the choice of adhesive system, whereas in small restorations, the adhesive used does not seem to be an influential factor. Incremental insertion did not seem to reduce restorations' microleakage.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)197-202
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American Dental Association
Volume137
Issue number2
StatePublished - Feb 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Adhesives
Coloring Agents
Silver Nitrate
Incisor
Dental Enamel
Lip
Analysis of Variance
Tooth
Water
single bond
Vivadent
inzoma

Keywords

  • Adhesive systems
  • Composite restorations
  • Insertion technique
  • Microleakage

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Influence of cavity dimensions, insertion technique and adhesive system on microleakage of Class V restorations. / Pfeifer, Carmem; Braga, Roberto Ruggiero; Cardoso, Paulo Eduardo Capel.

In: Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 137, No. 2, 02.2006, p. 197-202.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7dcb3ce177274c8395f20ab84f5f8c82,
title = "Influence of cavity dimensions, insertion technique and adhesive system on microleakage of Class V restorations",
abstract = "Background. The authors evaluated the influence of cavity dimensions, insertion technique and adhesive system on microleakage of Class V composite restorations. Methods. The authors prepared cylindrical cavities with enamel margins of 3-millimeter diameter by 1-mm depth or 6-mm diameter by 2-mm depth on the labial surface of bovine incisors. They defined experimental groups (n = 15) according to cavity size, insertion technique (bulk or incremental) and adhesive system applied (Single Bond, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minn., or Excite, Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, N.Y.). They restored preparations with Tetric Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent). After 36 hours' storage in distilled water at 37 C, specimens were submitted to microleakage using 50 percent silver nitrate as tracer. Teeth were sectioned twice and dye penetration on the axial wall was determined in millimeters. Results. The authors analyzed the data using analysis of variance/Tukey test (α = .05). For large restorations, the use of Single Bond resulted in higher microleakage than Excite (1.56 ± standard deviation [SD] 0.26 mm and 0.63 ± SD 0.56 mm, respectively; P <.001), whereas for small restorations there was no statistical difference between adhesives (Excite: 0.47 ± SD 0.28 mm; Single Bond: 0.46 ± SD 0.28 mm). Conclusion. The choice of adhesive system influenced microleakage only for large restorations. Incremental insertion of the composite did not affect dye penetration. Clinical Implications. Microleakage of composite restorations cannot be predicted only on the basis of the restorations' dimensions. In large restorations, it also depends on the choice of adhesive system, whereas in small restorations, the adhesive used does not seem to be an influential factor. Incremental insertion did not seem to reduce restorations' microleakage.",
keywords = "Adhesive systems, Composite restorations, Insertion technique, Microleakage",
author = "Carmem Pfeifer and Braga, {Roberto Ruggiero} and Cardoso, {Paulo Eduardo Capel}",
year = "2006",
month = "2",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "137",
pages = "197--202",
journal = "Journal of the American Dental Association",
issn = "0002-8177",
publisher = "American Dental Association",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Influence of cavity dimensions, insertion technique and adhesive system on microleakage of Class V restorations

AU - Pfeifer, Carmem

AU - Braga, Roberto Ruggiero

AU - Cardoso, Paulo Eduardo Capel

PY - 2006/2

Y1 - 2006/2

N2 - Background. The authors evaluated the influence of cavity dimensions, insertion technique and adhesive system on microleakage of Class V composite restorations. Methods. The authors prepared cylindrical cavities with enamel margins of 3-millimeter diameter by 1-mm depth or 6-mm diameter by 2-mm depth on the labial surface of bovine incisors. They defined experimental groups (n = 15) according to cavity size, insertion technique (bulk or incremental) and adhesive system applied (Single Bond, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minn., or Excite, Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, N.Y.). They restored preparations with Tetric Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent). After 36 hours' storage in distilled water at 37 C, specimens were submitted to microleakage using 50 percent silver nitrate as tracer. Teeth were sectioned twice and dye penetration on the axial wall was determined in millimeters. Results. The authors analyzed the data using analysis of variance/Tukey test (α = .05). For large restorations, the use of Single Bond resulted in higher microleakage than Excite (1.56 ± standard deviation [SD] 0.26 mm and 0.63 ± SD 0.56 mm, respectively; P <.001), whereas for small restorations there was no statistical difference between adhesives (Excite: 0.47 ± SD 0.28 mm; Single Bond: 0.46 ± SD 0.28 mm). Conclusion. The choice of adhesive system influenced microleakage only for large restorations. Incremental insertion of the composite did not affect dye penetration. Clinical Implications. Microleakage of composite restorations cannot be predicted only on the basis of the restorations' dimensions. In large restorations, it also depends on the choice of adhesive system, whereas in small restorations, the adhesive used does not seem to be an influential factor. Incremental insertion did not seem to reduce restorations' microleakage.

AB - Background. The authors evaluated the influence of cavity dimensions, insertion technique and adhesive system on microleakage of Class V composite restorations. Methods. The authors prepared cylindrical cavities with enamel margins of 3-millimeter diameter by 1-mm depth or 6-mm diameter by 2-mm depth on the labial surface of bovine incisors. They defined experimental groups (n = 15) according to cavity size, insertion technique (bulk or incremental) and adhesive system applied (Single Bond, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minn., or Excite, Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, N.Y.). They restored preparations with Tetric Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent). After 36 hours' storage in distilled water at 37 C, specimens were submitted to microleakage using 50 percent silver nitrate as tracer. Teeth were sectioned twice and dye penetration on the axial wall was determined in millimeters. Results. The authors analyzed the data using analysis of variance/Tukey test (α = .05). For large restorations, the use of Single Bond resulted in higher microleakage than Excite (1.56 ± standard deviation [SD] 0.26 mm and 0.63 ± SD 0.56 mm, respectively; P <.001), whereas for small restorations there was no statistical difference between adhesives (Excite: 0.47 ± SD 0.28 mm; Single Bond: 0.46 ± SD 0.28 mm). Conclusion. The choice of adhesive system influenced microleakage only for large restorations. Incremental insertion of the composite did not affect dye penetration. Clinical Implications. Microleakage of composite restorations cannot be predicted only on the basis of the restorations' dimensions. In large restorations, it also depends on the choice of adhesive system, whereas in small restorations, the adhesive used does not seem to be an influential factor. Incremental insertion did not seem to reduce restorations' microleakage.

KW - Adhesive systems

KW - Composite restorations

KW - Insertion technique

KW - Microleakage

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33344470609&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33344470609&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 16521386

AN - SCOPUS:33344470609

VL - 137

SP - 197

EP - 202

JO - Journal of the American Dental Association

JF - Journal of the American Dental Association

SN - 0002-8177

IS - 2

ER -