[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit ::
Main Menu
Journal Information::
Editorial Policies::
Articles archive::
For Authors::
Contact us::
Site Facilities::
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
Last site contents
:: Contact Us
:: Volume 24, Issue 4 (10-2012) ::
J Iran Dent Assoc 2012, 24(4): 164-170 Back to browse issues page
Microleakage of Self-Adhesive Resin Cements Compared With Resin Cements Containing Etch & Rinse Adhesives
Haleh Heshmat * 1, Maryam Hoorizadganjkar2 , Saeid Zeinali3 , Farzaneh Aghajani4
1- Assistant Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Azad University. Tehran, Iran , h_heshmat@yahoo.com
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Azad University. Tehran, Iran
3- Dentist
4- Member of Dental Materials Reference Lab, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Tehran, Iran
Abstract:   (9302 Views)
   Background and Aim : Current self-adhesive resin cements have become popular for esthetic restorations. The purpose of this study was to compare the microleakage of 2 self-adhesive resin cements and 2 etch and rinse versions of the same brands . 

  Materials and Methods : Forty human third molars were randomly assigned to 4 experimental groups: 1-Rely X Unicem, 2- Rely X ARC+ Acid etch 37% + Single Bond ,3- Nexus 3 Acid etch 37% + Optibond Solo, and 4- Maxcem Elite. Microleakage of the specimens were then measured with a four point scoring system at both the cervical &occlusal areas, with the aid of a stereomicroscope. Microleakage scores were compared using Kruskul-Wallis analysis, followed by relative Dunn test .

  Results : The microleakage of Rely X Unicem and Nexus 3 were significantly less in the occlusal region (P<0.05), whereas in the cervical area there was no significant difference in microleakage between Rely X Unicem and Rely X ARC (P= 0.0087). The microleakage of Nexus 3 was significantly less than that of Rely X Unicem.Maxcem Elite showed the highestlevel of microleakage (P<0.05 ).

  Conclusion Microleakage of both cements using etch & rinse adhesive systems were significantly lower in comparison withtheir self- etch counterparts both at the cervical &occlusal areas. (P< 0.05 )

 

 

  

 

 

Keywords: Microleakage, Self-Adhesive Resin Cement, Dentin Adhesion, Enamel adhesion
Full-Text [PDF 173 kb]   (3992 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original | Subject: Restorative Dentistry
References
1. Gerdolle DA. Invitro evaluation of microleakage of indirect composite inlays cemented with four luting agents. J Prosthet Dent. 2005 June; 93(6):563-70.
2. Cheyloan JM, Samama Y. Adhesion The silent revo-lution in dentistry, 1st ed. Germany: Quintesence; 2000, 277-303.
3. Sadr A, Shimada Y, Tagami J. Microleakage of class-v inlays using an experimental self-adhesive resin cement. Tokyo Med & Dent Univ Japan. July; 0404.
4. Ibara G, Janson GH, Geurtsen W, Varges MA. Microleakage of porcelain veneer restoration bonded to enamel and dentine with a new self-adhesive resin-based dental cement. Dent Ma-ter. 2007 Feb; 23(2):218-25.
5. Radovic I, Monticelli F, Goracci C, Vulicevic ZR, Ferrari M. Self adhesive resin cements: A literature review. J Adhes Dent. 2008 Aug; 10(4): 251-8.
6. Piwowarczyk A, Hans-christoph L, John A. Mi-croleakage of various cementing agents for full cast crowns. Dent Mater. 2005 May; 21(5):445-53.
7. Albert F. Marginal adaptation and microleakage of porcera allceram crowns with four cements. Inter J Prosthod. 2004 Sep-Oct; 17(5):529-35.
8. Kramer N. Adhesive luting of indirect restora-tion. Am J Dent. 2000 Nov;13(Spec No):60D-76D.
9. Irie M, Suzuki K. Current luting agents: Margin-al gap formation of composite inlay and their mechanical properties. Dent Mater. 2001Sep; 17 (4):347-53.
10. Eliades T, Editore, Zohairy A, Feilzer AJ. Den-tal hard tissue and bonding, 1st. Berlin: Springer; 2005, 155-70.
11. McCabe J, Walls A WG. Applied Dental Mate-rials, 9th ed. Oxford: Blackwell; 2008, 240-2.
12. Al-Saleh M, El- Movafy O, Tam L. Mikroleak-age of posterior composite restoration lined with self-adhesive resin cements. Oper Dent. 2010 Sep-Oct; 35(5):556-63.
13. International standardization organization. Technical Report TR 11405. Dent Materials: Guidanze on testing of adhesion to tooth struc-ture; 2003.
14. Uludag B. Microleakage of ceramic inlays luted with different resin cements and dentin adhe-sives. J Prosthet Dent. 2009 Oct;102(4):235-241.
15. Lin J, Shinya A, Gomi H. Bonding of self-adhesive resin cements to enamel using differ-ent surface treatments: bond strength and etch-ing pattern evaluations. Dent Mater J. 2010 May; 26(4): 425-32.
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA


XML     Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Heshmat H, Hoorizadganjkar M, Zeinali S, Aghajani F. Microleakage of Self-Adhesive Resin Cements Compared With Resin Cements Containing Etch & Rinse Adhesives. J Iran Dent Assoc 2012; 24 (4) :164-170
URL: http://jida.ir/article-1-1278-en.html


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 24, Issue 4 (10-2012) Back to browse issues page
Journal of Iranian Dental Association

AWT IMAGE

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly

Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.05 seconds with 37 queries by YEKTAWEB 4645