Abstract
Objectives: To investigate the influence of enamel wetness on marginal quality and enamel microcrack formation using various dentine bonding adhesives; and to determine the changes of marginal quality and enamel microcracks over time. Methods: Forty extracted molars were each prepared with a cylindrical cavity and divided into five groups. Groups 1-4 were acid-etched and treated separately with either an ethanol-based adhesive (Single Bond) or an acetone-based adhesive (Prime&Bond NT) on either dry or wet enamel. Teeth in Group 5 were treated with a self-etching adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond). Epoxy replicas of different stages were taken after cavity preparation, after restoration, after 24 h storage, and after thermocycling test. These replicas were examined under a scanning electron microscope for their restorative marginal quality and enamel microcrack. Quantitative measurement was performed to measure the length ratio of different margin patterns, and enamel microcracks. Results: There was no difference in the marginal quality when ethanol-base adhesive was applied on dry or wet dentin. The group using acetone-based adhesive on the dry enamel presented higher intact margin ratio than the group on wet enamel did only after restoration. Using self-etching primer led to higher open margin ratio at all stages. Enamel microcracks were found in all five groups and were higher in groups using acetone-based adhesives. Conclusion: Enamel wetness did not show a significantly adverse effect on the marginal quality of the restorations using either acetone- or ethanol-based adhesive. Using self-etching adhesive may lead to high incidence of margin deterioration.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 343-351 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Journal of Dentistry |
| Volume | 34 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2006 May 1 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Dentistry(all)
Cite this
}
Influence of enamel wetness on resin composite restorations using various dentine bonding agents : Part I-effects on marginal quality and enamel microcrack formation. / Chuang, Shu Fen; Chang, Chih Han; Yaman, Peter; Chang, Li Tung.
In: Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 34, No. 5, 01.05.2006, p. 343-351.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Influence of enamel wetness on resin composite restorations using various dentine bonding agents
T2 - Part I-effects on marginal quality and enamel microcrack formation
AU - Chuang, Shu Fen
AU - Chang, Chih Han
AU - Yaman, Peter
AU - Chang, Li Tung
PY - 2006/5/1
Y1 - 2006/5/1
N2 - Objectives: To investigate the influence of enamel wetness on marginal quality and enamel microcrack formation using various dentine bonding adhesives; and to determine the changes of marginal quality and enamel microcracks over time. Methods: Forty extracted molars were each prepared with a cylindrical cavity and divided into five groups. Groups 1-4 were acid-etched and treated separately with either an ethanol-based adhesive (Single Bond) or an acetone-based adhesive (Prime&Bond NT) on either dry or wet enamel. Teeth in Group 5 were treated with a self-etching adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond). Epoxy replicas of different stages were taken after cavity preparation, after restoration, after 24 h storage, and after thermocycling test. These replicas were examined under a scanning electron microscope for their restorative marginal quality and enamel microcrack. Quantitative measurement was performed to measure the length ratio of different margin patterns, and enamel microcracks. Results: There was no difference in the marginal quality when ethanol-base adhesive was applied on dry or wet dentin. The group using acetone-based adhesive on the dry enamel presented higher intact margin ratio than the group on wet enamel did only after restoration. Using self-etching primer led to higher open margin ratio at all stages. Enamel microcracks were found in all five groups and were higher in groups using acetone-based adhesives. Conclusion: Enamel wetness did not show a significantly adverse effect on the marginal quality of the restorations using either acetone- or ethanol-based adhesive. Using self-etching adhesive may lead to high incidence of margin deterioration.
AB - Objectives: To investigate the influence of enamel wetness on marginal quality and enamel microcrack formation using various dentine bonding adhesives; and to determine the changes of marginal quality and enamel microcracks over time. Methods: Forty extracted molars were each prepared with a cylindrical cavity and divided into five groups. Groups 1-4 were acid-etched and treated separately with either an ethanol-based adhesive (Single Bond) or an acetone-based adhesive (Prime&Bond NT) on either dry or wet enamel. Teeth in Group 5 were treated with a self-etching adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond). Epoxy replicas of different stages were taken after cavity preparation, after restoration, after 24 h storage, and after thermocycling test. These replicas were examined under a scanning electron microscope for their restorative marginal quality and enamel microcrack. Quantitative measurement was performed to measure the length ratio of different margin patterns, and enamel microcracks. Results: There was no difference in the marginal quality when ethanol-base adhesive was applied on dry or wet dentin. The group using acetone-based adhesive on the dry enamel presented higher intact margin ratio than the group on wet enamel did only after restoration. Using self-etching primer led to higher open margin ratio at all stages. Enamel microcracks were found in all five groups and were higher in groups using acetone-based adhesives. Conclusion: Enamel wetness did not show a significantly adverse effect on the marginal quality of the restorations using either acetone- or ethanol-based adhesive. Using self-etching adhesive may lead to high incidence of margin deterioration.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33646530533&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33646530533&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.07.006
DO - 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.07.006
M3 - Article
C2 - 16169654
AN - SCOPUS:33646530533
VL - 34
SP - 343
EP - 351
JO - Journal of Dentistry
JF - Journal of Dentistry
SN - 0300-5712
IS - 5
ER -