Radiographic view of adhesive layer and relationship with marginal leakage in class II composite resin restorations
This study assessed the influence of the application of bonding agents prior to or after matrix and wedge placement in the radiographic view of the adhesive layer in cervical walls of Class II composite resin restorations and correlated the findings with marginal leakage. Standard cavities were prepared in the mesial
and distal faces of human molars, with cervical margins placed in dentin/cementum. Restorations were made using metallic matrix bands and wooden wedges. The microhybrid composite Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE) and two
adhesive systems – Single Bond 2 (SB-3M ESPE) and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (SMP-3M ESPE) – were used, thus defining five groups (n= 12): [SB1] and [SMP1]- matrix and wedge placed after bonding application; [SB2] and [SMP2]-matrix and wedge placed prior to bonding application; [Control] – restorations without adhesive system. Bitewing radiographs from each tooth were obtained and the view or not of the adhesive layer in the cervical wall of each restoration was observed under magnification (40x). Specimens were thermalcycled and dye penetration (0.5% basic fuchsine) evaluated under magnification (40x). Data were submitted to Kruskal-Wallis and Spearman correlation tests (p=0.05). The placement of matrix and wedge before bonding agent application increased the view of the adhesive layer only for SB (p<0.001). Matrix did
not influence marginal leakage, and no significant relationship between radiographic view of adhesive layer and marginal leakage (r=-0.020; p =0.877) could be observed. In conclusion, SB presented better sealing ability than SMP (p<0.01).
Uniterms: Dentin-bonding agents. Dental leakage. Dental restoration permanent.
2. Mullejans R, Badawi MO, Raab WH, Lang H. An in vitro comparison of metal and transparent matrices used for bonded class II resin composite
restorations. Oper Dent. 2003; 28: 122-6.
3. Ernst CP, Streicher S, Willershausen B. Marginal adaptation of self-etching adhesives in Class II cavities. J Adhes Dent. 2002; 4: 223-31.
4. Kreulen CM, Van Amerongen WE, Akerboom HB, Borgmeijer PJ, Gruythuysen RJ. Radiographic assessments of Class II resin composite restorations in a clinical study: baseline results. ASDC J Dent Child. 1992; 59: 97-107.
5. Hara AT, Serra MC, Haiter-Neto F, Rodrigues AL Jr. Radiopacity of esthetic restorative materials compared with human tooth structure.
Am J Dent. 2001; 14: 383-6.
6. Akerboom HB, Kreulen CM, van Amerongen WE, Mol A. Radiopacity of posterior composite resins, composite resin luting cements, and glass
ionomer lining cements. J Prosthet Dent. 1993;70: 351-5.
7. Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ, Verdonschot EH. Adaptation and radiographic evaluation of four adhesive systems. J Dent. 1997; 25: 391-7.
8. Espelid I, Tveit AB, Erickson RL, Keck SC, Glasspoole EA. Radiopacity of restorations and detection of secondary caries. Dent Mater. 1991;
9. Hardison JD, Rafferty-Parker D, Mitchell RJ, Bean LR. Radiolucent halos associated with radiopaque composite resin restorations. J Am
Dent Assoc. 1989; 118: 595-7.
10.Zheng L, Pereira PN, Nakajima M, Sano H, Tagami J. Relationship between adhesive thickness and microtensile bond strength. Oper
Dent. 2001; 26: 97-104. 11.Choi KK, Condon JR, Ferracane JL. The effects of adhesive thickness on polymerization contraction stress of composite. J Dent Res. 2000; 79: 812-7.
12.Raskin A, D’Hoore W, Gonthier S, Degrange M, Dejou J. Reliability of in vitro microleakage tests: a literature review. J Adhes Dent. 2001; 3: 295-308.
13.Carvalho RM, Carrilho MR, Pereira LC, Garcia FC, Marquezini Jr L, Silva SM, et al. Sistemas adesivos: fundamentos para aplicação clínica.
Biodonto 2004; 2: 8-76.
14.Gallo JR, Burgess JO, Xu X. Effect of delayed application on shear bond strength of four fifthgeneration bonding systems. Oper Dent. 2001;
15.Lima FG, Moraes RR, Demarco FF, Del Pino FA, Powers J. One-bottle adhesives: in vitro analysis of solvent volatilization and sealing ability. Braz Oral Res. 2005; 19: 278-83.