Penetration of radiocalcium at the margins of resin and glass ionomer dentine bonding agents in primary and permanent teeth

被引:2
|
作者
Tulunoglu, Ö
Tulunoglu, I [1 ]
Ulusu, T
Genç, Y
机构
[1] Gazi Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Pedodont, Ankara, Turkey
[2] Univ Hacettepe, Fac Dent, Dept Prosthodont, TR-06100 Ankara, Turkey
[3] Ankara Univ, Fac Med, Dept Biostat, Ankara, Turkey
关键词
microleakage; dentine bonding agents; radioisotope detection;
D O I
10.1016/S0300-5712(00)00029-4
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the leakage of three resin dentine bonding agents (Prime and Bond, Scotchbond Multi-Purpose, Probond) and a glass ionomer dentine bonding agent (GC Fujibond LC), in cervical cavities prepared in primary and permanent molar teeth restored with a hybrid composite resin (Tetric). Methods: Cervical cavities without a bevel at the cave-surface margins were prepared in the buccal and lingual surfaces of extracted primary and permanent molar teeth. After being restored, the teeth were stored for 1 week in a saline solution at 37 degrees C and then thermally cycled between 5 and 55 degrees C. Marginal leakage was determined subsequently using a radioactive isotope containing Ca-45 and an autoradiographic technique. Results: The results revealed that there were no statistically significant differences in microleakage of the bond between permanent and primary teeth dentine and Fuji Bond LC and Probond dentine bonding agents. The difference between permanent and primary teeth groups for gingival values of the Prime and Bond 2.1 group U = 22.5, p = 0.0355 and the Scotchbond Multipurpose group U = 24.0, p = 0.0406 were statistically significant. There were no significant differences between the occlusal and gingival microleakage values in either primary or permanent teeth with Prime and Bond 2.1, Fuji Bond LC and Probond except the difference at Scotchbond Multipurpose in primary teeth. For primary teeth gingival margins, none of the bonding systems were significantly different from the control group. Conclusions: These results indicate that although no statistically significant differences were found between test and control group values, the use of Fuji II LC in cervical cavities with cementum margins in primary teeth would provide the best resistance to microleakage among the test materials while the use of Scotchbond Multi-Purpose would provide the best resistance to microleakage in cervical cavities with cementum margins in permanent teeth. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:481 / 486
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] In vitro evaluation of microleakage in primary teeth restored with three adhesive materials: ACTIVA™, composite resin, and resin-modified glass ionomer
    A. I. Amaireh
    S. H. Al-Jundi
    H. A. Alshraideh
    European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, 2019, 20 : 359 - 367
  • [42] In vitro evaluation of microleakage in primary teeth restored with three adhesive materials: ACTIVA™, composite resin, and resin-modified glass ionomer
    Amaireh, A., I
    Al-Jundi, S. H.
    Alshraideh, H. A.
    EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF PAEDIATRIC DENTISTRY, 2019, 20 (04) : 359 - 367
  • [43] Clinical behavior of glass ionomer cement type on deciduous and permanent teeth.
    DeGuzman, R
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1997, 76 (05) : 1227 - 1227
  • [44] Bond strengths of nine current dentine adhesive systems to primary and permanent teeth
    Courson, F
    Bouter, D
    Ruse, ND
    Degrange, M
    JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, 2005, 32 (04) : 296 - 303
  • [45] Retention rate of glass ionomer in primary and permanent molar.
    Chen, YY
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1997, 76 : 1419 - 1419
  • [46] An in vitro investigation of marginal dentine caries abutting composite resin and glass ionomer cement restorations
    Knight, G. M.
    McIntyre, J. M.
    Craig, G. G.
    Mulyani
    Zilm, P. S.
    Gully, N. J.
    AUSTRALIAN DENTAL JOURNAL, 2007, 52 (03) : 187 - 192
  • [47] Microtensile bond strength of glass ionomer cements to a resin composite using universal bonding agents with and without acid etching
    Farshidfar, Nima
    Agharokh, Mahya
    Ferooz, Maryam
    Bagheri, Rafat
    HELIYON, 2022, 8 (02)
  • [48] Do glass ionomer cements prevent caries lesions in margins of restorations in primary teeth? A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Raggio, Daniela Procida
    Tedesco, Tamara Kerber
    Bissoto Calvo, Ana Flavia
    Braga, Mariana Minatel
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, 2016, 147 (03): : 177 - 185
  • [49] Eugenol inhibition of resin modified glass ionomer luting agents.
    Nawiesniak, PJ
    Murchison, DF
    Schwartz, RS
    Gullickson, DC
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1998, 77 : 279 - 279
  • [50] COMPARISON OF THE SHEAR BOND STRENGTH OF A TITANIUM COMPOSITE RESIN MATERIAL WITH DENTINAL BONDING AGENTS VERSUS GLASS IONOMER CEMENTS
    COHEN, BI
    CONDOS, S
    DEUTSCH, AS
    MUSIKANT, BL
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 1992, 68 (06): : 904 - 909