Comparison of Microleakage of A Multi-Mode Adhesive System with Contemporary Adhesives in Class II Resin Restorations

dc.contributor.authorTuncer, Duygu
dc.contributor.authorCelik, Cigdem
dc.contributor.authorCehreli, Sevi Burcak
dc.contributor.authorArhun, Neslihan
dc.contributor.orcIDhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5936-0196en_US
dc.contributor.researcherIDAAA-1576-2021en_US
dc.contributor.researcherIDAAD-6138-2021en_US
dc.contributor.researcherIDR-2536-2019en_US
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-26T10:36:33Z
dc.date.available2024-02-26T10:36:33Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.description.abstractAim: The aim was to compare the microleakage of resin composite bonded with different adhesive systems in class-II cavities at enamel or dentine margins. Material and methods: 60 extracted human molar teeth received slot cavity preparations on mesial and distal surfaces (mesial cervical margin was prepared in enamel and distal in dentine). They were randomly divided into five groups (n=12) according to the adhesive system: Group-A: Silorane Bond (S), Group-B: Adper Single Bond 2 (SB), Group-C: Clearfil SE Bond (CSE), Group-D: Single Bond Universal (USel) (selective etch-and-rinse), Group-E: Single Bond Universal (USE) (all-in-one). The preparations were restored using the same resin composite (Filtek Ultimate) except Group A which was restored by Silorane composite. The teeth were thermocycled, immersed in dye, sectioned, and dye penetration was evaluated quantitatively using image analysis. The data were analyzed using the two-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni test. Results: In all groups, there was no statistically significant difference between enamel margins at occlusal and gingival sites (p>0.05). The statistical difference between Group-A (S) and Group-B (SB) was significant at all margins. Group-B (SB) presented the greatest microleakage amounts at all margins and the highest scores were obtained in the dentine. Likewise, SB demonstrated statistically significant differences between dentine and enamel margins (occlusal and gingival)(p<0.05). Conclusion: All adhesive systems showed similar microleakage values between enamel margins in occlusal and gingival regions. However, when the gingival margin is located in the dentine, etch&rinse adhesive systems may not be a choice in terms of microleakage prevention.en_US
dc.identifier.endpage1297en_US
dc.identifier.issn0169-4243en_US
dc.identifier.issue13en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84898802712en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1288en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11727/11599
dc.identifier.volume28en_US
dc.identifier.wos000334157900006en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1080/01694243.2014.900908en_US
dc.relation.journalJOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergien_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectclass II cavityen_US
dc.subjectdental materialsen_US
dc.subjectmicroleakageen_US
dc.subjectmulti-mode adhesiveen_US
dc.subjectresin compositeen_US
dc.titleComparison of Microleakage of A Multi-Mode Adhesive System with Contemporary Adhesives in Class II Resin Restorationsen_US
dc.typearticleen_US

Files

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: