| SDJ |
| Editorial Board |
| Advisory Board |
| Information for authors |
| Submit manuscript |
| Subscribe to SDJ |
| Search SDJ |
| About SDJ |
| SDJ Current Issue |
| Journal Archives |
| 2010-22 |
| 22-1 |
ISSN (Print) 1013-9052
EISSN 1658-3558
The Saudi Dental Journal,
P.O. Box 52500,
Riyadh 11563,
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
P.O. Box 52500,
Riyadh 11563,
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| Tel. |
966-1-467-7328 |
| Fax. |
933-1-467-7308 / 966-1-467-7534 |
| Email |
saudidj@ksu.edu.sa |
|
Microleakage of various amalgam bonding systems
Wala M. Amin, PhD, Msc, BDS
This study evaluated the effectiveness of three resin bonding systems, one glass -ionomer cement and one resin cement in reducing microleakage in Class V amalgam restorations. Seventy-two maxillary premolars that were extracted for orthodontic purposes were utilized. The teeth were divided into six groups of 12 each. Three groups were assigned for use with the adhesive resins which were applied onto the prepared cavity walls of these respective groups; the fourth groups was assigned for use with glass-ionomer cement and for the fifth group, resin cement was applied onto the axial wall of the cavity prior to amalgam condensation. In the sixth, control group, the cavity walls were painted with Copalite varnish and air-dried prior to placement of the amalgam restoration. The dye penetration method was employed and the restored teeth were sectioned and examined under reflected-light stereomicroscope. The degree of microleakage was scored using standard scoring criteria. Kruskal-Wallis test with non-parametric post hoc test indicated that microleakage was less in restorations treated with adhesive systems than in those with Copalite varnish (P<0.05). Wilcoxon Ranks test for non-parametric samples indicated that microleakage was more extensive at the gingival margins in all of the restorations than at the occlusal margins (P<0.05). At both margins, the extent of microleakage varied among the investigated materials. The two resin bonding systems (Single Bond and Prime & Bond 2.1) demonstrated superiority in reducing microleakage compared to the controls, the glass-ionomer (Vitrebond) and the resin cement (Time Line). Adhesive resin treatment significantly reduced microleakage indicating improved bonding of Class V amalgam restorations. None of the studied systems bonded adequately at the gingival aspect of the cavity as they did occlusally. At the occlusal margin. Single Bond and Prime & Bond 2.1 compared favorably to the glass- ionomer (Vitrebond) and the resin cement (Time Line).
Saudi Dental Journal 2004;16(3):96-101.
|