The effect of different types of flowable restorative resins on microleakage of Class V cavities

• Published in: Operative dentistry Vol. 28; no. 6; p. 773
• Main Authors: Yazici, A Rüya, Ozgünaltay, Gül, Dayangaç, Berrin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01-11-2003
• Subjects: Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate - chemistry; Ceramics - chemistry; Composite Resins - chemistry; Dental Bonding; Dental Cavity Preparation - classification; Dental Enamel - ultrastructure; Dental Leakage - classification; Dental Restoration, Permanent - classification; Dentin - ultrastructure; Dentin-Bonding Agents - chemistry; Humans; Materials Testing; Methacrylates - chemistry; Organically Modified Ceramics; Polymethacrylic Acids - chemistry; Rosaniline Dyes; Silanes - chemistry; Siloxanes - chemistry; Surface Properties; Temperature; Viscosity
• ISSN: 0361-7734

This study evaluated the microleakage of Class V cavities restored with three different types of flowable resin restorative material and compared the effects of using their respective manufacturer's dentin adhesive or a different brand. Class V cavities with the occlusal margin in enamel and the gingival margin in dentin were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 48 non-carious human molars. The teeth were randomly assigned to three equal groups of 16. The first eight teeth in each group were restored with one of the flowable restorative materials (Filtek Flow, Dyract Flow, Admira Flow) using the manufacturer's recommended dentin adhesive (Single Bond, Prime & Bond NT, Admira Bond), and the remaining eight molars were restored using a different brand of dentin adhesive (Gluma Comfort Bond). The samples were thermocycled 200 times (5 degrees C-55 degrees C) with a one-minute dwell time. They were then immersed in a 2% basic fuchsin solution for 24 hours, sectioned and analyzed by stereomicroscopy. There was no statistically significant difference at the occlusal margins for either restoration used with its respective dentin adhesive. At the gingival margins, there was a significant difference among all groups. Flowable ormocer (Admira Flow/Admira Bond) displayed the least leakage at the gingival margins. When these flowable restoratives were used with a different brand of dentin adhesive, statistically significant differences were observed both on enamel and dentin. None of the restoratives tested fully prevented leakage at the gingival margins. No significant differences in microleakage were observed among the restorative materials used with respect to the manufacturer's dentin adhesive or a different brand except for Admira Flow restorative at the gingival margins. The gingival margins had significantly more microleakage than the occlusal margins (p < 0.05) except in the Admira Flow group, where microleakage at the occlusal and gingival margins was almost equal.