Objectives: This study examined changes in the dentinal fluid flow (DFF) during restorative procedures and compared permeability after restoration among restorative materials and adhesives. Methods: A class 1 cavity was prepared and restored with either amalgam (Bestaloy), or composite (Z-250) with one of two etch-and-rinse adhesives (Scotchbond MultiPurpose: MP and Single Bond 2: SB) or one of two self-etch adhesives (Clearfil SE Bond: CE and Easy Bond: EB) on an extracted human third molar which was connected to a sub-nanoliter fluid flow measuring device (NFMD) under 20 cm water pressure. DFF was measured from the intact tooth state through the restoration procedures to 30 min after restoration, and re-measured at 3 and 7 days post-restoration. Results: Inward flow during cavity preparation was followed by outward flow after preparation. In amalgam restoration, the outward flow changed into an inward flow during amalgam filling, which was followed by a slight outward flow after finishing. In composite restoration, MP and SB showed an inward flow and outward flow for the rinsing and drying steps, respectively. Application of a hydrophobic bonding resin in the MP and CE systems caused a decrease in the flow rate. Air-drying of solvent for the CE and EB systems caused a sudden outward flow, whereas light-curing of the adhesive and composite caused an abrupt inward flow. Conclusions: Each restorative step clearly changed the direction and the rate of the DFF during restoration, which could be well identified with NFMD.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||9|
|Journal||Journal of Dentistry|
|State||Published - Apr 2010|
- Dentinal fluid flow
ASJC Scopus subject areas