Comparison of Microleakage of a Self-adhesive Composite with a Conventional Flowable Composite and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement in Class V Restorations

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

2 Operative Dental Specialist, Private Practice

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: Self-adhering flowable composite resins were recently introduced to combine the merits of both adhesive and restorative technologies in one product. This study aimed to evaluate the microleakage of a self-adhering flowable composite in comparison with a conventional flowable composite and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class V cavities. Methods: In this in vitro experimental study, class V cavities were prepared in the buccal and lingual surfaces of 20 sound human molars (40 cavities). The cavities were randomly divided into 4 groups (n=10) and restored with Vertise Flow self-adhering flowable composite in group A, Premise conventional flowable composite in group B, etched with 37% phosphoric acid and restored with OptiBond Solo Plus + Vertise Flow in group C, and Fuji II LC glass ionomer in group D. The specimens were thermocycled for 1000 cycles (5-55°C), immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsine dye solution for 24 h, sectioned, and observed under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed by SPSS software using the Kruskal-Wallis, Npar, and Wilcoxon signed rank tests (alpha=0.05). Results: The Kruskal-Wallis test showed that the degree of microleakage was not significantly different among different groups at the enamel margin (P=161) or the dentin margin (P=467). The Wilcoxon signed rank test revealed that the difference in microleakage between the dentin and enamel margins was significant within all four groups (P<0.05). Conclusion: The microleakage of self-adhesive composite, self-adhesive composite with separate etching and bonding, flowable composite, and glass ionomer cement was the same at both dentin and enamel margins.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Full Text

The demand for tooth-colored restorations has substantially increased over the past decades. Composite resins are the most widely used esthetic restorative materials (1). The reasons for this widespread popularity are their excellent esthetics, the need for minimal cavity preparation, micromechanical bonding, and satisfactory dental bonding. An optimal bond to a dental substrate can help in the adhesion of restorative materials and eliminate the need for the preparation of a retentive form, which requires the removal of sound tooth structure. An optimal bond between the restorative materials and the tooth structure can effectively decrease microleakage and its subsequent complications (1).

The durability of class V restorations and prevention of microleakage in cervical restorations, especially in the absence of enamel at the gingival margin, are major challenges in restorative dentistry(2). Marginal microleakage leads to subsequent tooth hypersensitivity, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, and pupal damage (3). The absence of enamel at the gingival margin of cervical lesions is a major challenge (4). Therefore, the significance of the provision of a complete seal should be considered at the time of treatment for the success and f

One common concern in the composite restoration of teeth is the time-consuming process of enamel and dentin surface preparation due to the possibility of saliva contamination of the cavity during the procedural steps, which can negatively affect the longevity of the restoration and may necessitate repetition of the preparation steps (7, 8). This is particularly important in class V restorations, which are close to the gingival margin and adjacent to the gingival crevicular fluid because of more difficult isolation of these areas (9). Composite resins and glass ionomers are widely used for the restoration of cervical lesions (2). The use of flowable composites in these cavities was recently recommended as an efficient alternative to conventional composites (10). The flowable composites have excellent esthetics and low viscosity (8, 11, 12), which enhances their delivery into the cavity and adaptation to the walls, compared to conventional composites (13, 14).

Self-adhering flowable composites were recently introduced to address the time-consuming application of conventional composites (15). These composites combine the merits of both adhesive and restorative technologies in the same product (16). The composition of these composites includes glycerophosphate dimethacrylate (GPDM) to etch the enamel and dentin and hydroxyethyl methacrylate to enhance wetting and resin penetration into dentin. These resins are bonded to the phosphate groups of the GPDM monomers and hydroxyapatite of tooth structure by chemical bonding. Moreover, polymerized monomers are micromechanically interlocked between the dentin collagen fibers and the smear layer (16, 17).

The use of composite resins that do not require the separate application of adhesive will save time and minimize errors (18). This study aimed to assess the degree of microleakage of self-adhering flowable composite in comparison with conventional flowable composite and resin-modified glass ionomer in cervical cavities.  

Materials and Methods

This in vitro, experimental study evaluated 20 sound molar teeth with no caries or decalcification, which had been extracted or were under orthodontic treatment within three months before the study onset (IR.KMU.REC.1395.922). The collected teeth were washed under running water, and the tissue residues and debris were removed from the surface of the samples. A scaler was used for this purpose. Then, the surface of the samples was polished with a prophy brush and pumice paste with a low-speed handpiece. Immediately after polishing, the teeth were disinfected in 0.5% chloramine T solution for one week and were subsequently stored in distilled water at room temperature (25°C).

Next, 80 standard class V cavities with 4 mm mesiodistal width, 1.5 mm depth, and 2 mm occlusogingival height were prepared in the buccal and lingual surfaces at the midpoint of the cementoenamel junction (half of the cavity was in the enamel and the other half in dentin). The cavities were prepared with a high-speed handpiece and 0.8 straight fissure diamond bur under copious water irrigation. The bur was replaced after the preparation of five cavities. The samples were then randomly divided into 4 groups of 10 for the application of different restorative materials. Table I presents the characteristics of the adhesives and restorative materials used in this study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table I:  Characteristics of the adhesives evaluated in this study

Material

Manufacturer

Chemical composition

Vertise Flow self-adhering composite

Batch numbr:5842135

A2 shade

Kerr, Orange, CA, USA

GPDM, methacrylate co-monomer, prepolymerized filler,

1-µm barium glass filler,

 nano-sized colloidal silica,

 Nano-sized ytterbium fluoride.

pH:1.9

OptiBond Solo Plus

Batch number:35960

Kerr, Orange, CA, USA

 

Premise flowable composite

Batch number:5923029

Kerr, Orange, CA, USA

Prepolymerized filler, barium glass, silica filler, ethoxylated bis-phenol-A-dimethacrylate, Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, light-cure initiators and stabilizers, organophosphate dispersant

Fuji II LC

Batch number:002563

GC, Tokyo, Japan

 

Etchant gel

Kerr, Orange, CA, USA

37.5% orthophosphoric acid, silica thickener

Cavity Conditioner

Batch number:1605031

GC, Tokyo, Japan

20% polyacrylic acid solution

 

Group A: After 20 seconds of rinsing, excess surface moisture was removed by a cotton pellet. Then, the entire cavity was filled with an A2 shade of self-adhering flowable composite (Vertise Flow Self-Adhesive, Kerr) and cured for 20 seconds with a light curing unit and a light intensity of 460 mW /cm2.

Group B: After 20 seconds of washing, the surface was gently dried with airflow for 5 seconds, etched with 37% phosphoric acid gel for 15 seconds, and washed for 20 seconds. Excess surface moisture was removed by cotton pellets. The surface was impregnated with a thin layer of bonding agent (OptiBond Solo Plus, Kerr, USA). The bonding agent was rubbed softly with an applicator for 15 seconds. Then, it was thinned with gentle airflow for 3 seconds, and the second layer was bonded, and re-thinned by airflow. Next, it was cured for 20 seconds. After that, the cavity was filled with conventional flowable composite (Premise, Kerr, USA) and cured for 40 seconds.

Group C: After 20 seconds of washing, the surface was gently dried with airflow for 5 seconds, etched with 37% phosphoric acid gel for 15 seconds, washed for 20 seconds, excess surface moisture was removed by cotton pellets, and the surface was impregnated with a thin layer of bonding agent (OptiBond Solo Plus, Kerr, USA). The bonding agent was gently rubbed with an applicator for 15 seconds, thinned gently with airflow for 3 seconds, and then the second layer of bonding agent was added, thinned again by airflow, and cured for 20 seconds. Next, the cavity was filled with the A2 shade of self-adhering flowable composite (Vertise Flow self-adhesive, Kerr, USA) and cured for 20 seconds with a light curing unit with a light intensity of 460 mW/cm2.

Group D: After 20 seconds of rinsing, the surface was gently dried with airflow for 5 seconds. Cavity conditioning was performed with 20% polyacrylic acid (Cavity Conditioner; GC, Japan) for 10 seconds, rinsed for 20 seconds, and excess surface moisture was removed by a cotton pellet. The cavity was filled with glass ionomer (Fuji II LC; GC, Japan), and cured for 20 seconds. After 24 hours, finishing and polishing procedures were carried out using a silicone bur and a polisher for all specimens.

After restoration, the teeth were incubated in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours. In the next step, the restorations underwent aging (1000 thermal cycles, at 5°C for 30 seconds and at 55°C for 30 seconds with a transfer time of 10 seconds) (19, 20). The apex of the teeth was filled with sticky wax to prevent dye penetration. Afterward, the teeth were coated with 2 layers of nail varnish, except for the class V restoration area and a 1-mm margin around it. The samples were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsine solution for 24 hours. The teeth were then rinsed and mounted in acrylic blocks. They were longitudinally sectioned at the center of the restoration occluso-gingivally using a 0.3 mm double-sided diamond disc. The sectioning process was performed under water irrigation to eliminate the debris, and the sectioned samples were inspected under a stereomicroscope (ZEISS- Stemi DV4) at ×40 magnification.

The dye penetration was scored as follows (21): Score 0=no dye penetration, score 1=dye penetration to 1/2 of the gingival or occlusal wall, score 2=dye penetration by more than 1/2 of the gingival wall but not reaching the axial wall, and score 3=dye penetration reaching the axial wall. The data were analyzed by SPSS software using the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon signed rank tests at the significance level of P<0.05.

 Results

The study was conducted on 20 teeth in 4 equal groups with 10 cavities.

The degree of microleakage in the study groups is presented in Tables II and III. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed that the degree of microleakage at the enamel margin was not significantly different among the groups (P=0.161). Based on this test, the degree of microleakage at the dentin margin was not significantly different among the groups either (P=0.467). The Wilcoxon signed rank test showed that the difference in the degree of microleakage at the dentin and enamel margins was significant within all four groups (P<0.05). In all groups, the degree of microleakage was significantly higher at the dentin margin than at the enamel margin.

 

Table II:  Frequency of different degrees of microleakage at the dentin and enamel margins in the study groups

 

Groups

Enamel margin

Dentin margin

Score 0

score 1

Score 2

score 3

Score 0

Score 1

Score 2

Score 3

A

B

C

D

0

2

4

1

10

7

4

4

0

1

2

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

3

2

6

9

6

5

3

1

1

3
                     

A: self-adhering flowable composite ( Vertise Flow Self-Adhesive)

B:  phosphoric acid 37%+OptiBond Solo Plus+ conventional flowable composite

C:  phosphoric acid 37%+OptiBond Solo Plus+ self-adhering flowable composite ( Vertise Flow Self-Adhesive)

D: polyacrylic acid 20%+ glass inomer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table III: Descriptive statistics of marginal microleakage at the dentin and enamel margins

 

N

 

Mean

Std. Deviation

  
 

Enamel

A

10

1.10

.316

 

B

10

.90

.568

 

C

10

.80

.789

 

D

10

1.40

.699

 

Total

40

1.05

.639

 

Dentin

A

10

2.20

.632

 

B

10

2.10

.316

 

C

10

1.80

.632

 

D

10

2.10

.738

 

Total

40

2.05

.597

  

A: self-adhering flowable composite ( Vertise Flow Self-Adhesive)

B:  phosphoric acid 37%+OptiBond Solo Plus+ conventional flowable composite

C:  phosphoric acid 37%+OptiBond Solo Plus+ self-adhering flowable composite ( Vertise Flow Self-Adhesive)

D: polyacrylic acid 20%+ glass inomer

 

 

Discussion

Composite resins are commonly used for dental restorations, especially in the anterior teeth due to the increased demand of patients for cosmetic restorations (22). Recently, self-adhering composite resins were introduced to the market with a behavior similar to that of self-adhesive cements. Thus, it is important to assess the clinical efficacy of this novel type of composite in vitro.

Among different characteristics, marginal leakage greatly affects the clinical success of restorations (23). Prevention of marginal leakage is a key goal in restorative dentistry. Accordingly, many scholars consider the microleakage as an index to assess the superiority of restorative materials over each other (24). Class V cavities are the most efficient for the evaluation of the clinical characteristics of the adhesives. In the present study, class V cavities were prepared with their occlusal margin in the enamel and gingival margin in the dentin. The results showed no significant difference among the tested composites in terms of microleakage either at the enamel or at the dentin margin.

The polymerization shrinkage is very high in class V cavities with a C factor of 5, and thus, it is imperative to assess the microleakage in such cavities (25). The study results showed that the degree of microleakage was significantly higher at the dentin margin than the enamel margin in all four groups due to the structural differences between the enamel and dentin, better etching of enamel, lower mineral content and higher water content of dentin, and presence of dentinal tubules (23, 26).

In group A, in which the self-adhesive composite was used without etching and bonding, the dentin microleakage was significantly greater than the enamel microleakage due to the characteristics of the Vertise Flow self-adhesive composite. Because of the acidic phosphate group in this composite, the GPDM monomer has potent acidity to etch the tooth structure (27). It has been shown that Vertise Flow opens the dentin tubules and exposes the collagen network fibers with microporosities, which is similar to the effect of acid etching with phosphoric acid. Due to the presence of this functional monomer in its composition, Vertise Flow has strong acidity.

The present results found no significant difference in the degree of microleakage at the enamel margin among different groups. Moreover, the degree of microleakage at the dentin margin did not significantly differ among different groups, demonstrating the acceptable clinical sealing ability of Vertise Flow self-adhesive composite without the need for additional etching and bonding; although, there are some limitations in the handling of these materials.

Some studies showed that the use of adhesive agents prior to the application of self-adhesive composites increased the bond strength and decreased the microleakage at the enamel and dentin margins (16, 28). However, several other studies found no significant difference when a flowable non-adhesive composite was used without etching according to the manufacturer's instructions, which was in line with the present findings (10, 29, 30).

Bektas et al. in 2013 evaluated the microleakage of the Vertise Flow composite and showed no difference between the degree of microleakage of the Vertise Flow self-adhesive composite and a conventional composite used with OptiBond Solo, which was in line with the present results (16). Ferrari et al. also showed that Vertise Flow self-adhesive composite had a lower degree of leakage than all other self-adhesive composites (31). In a study by Lane et al., the degree of microleakage of the WetBond self-adhesive composite was not different from that of the conventional composites, which was in line with the present results; however, separate application of bonding agent resulted in a reduction in microleakage (32).

Asefzadeh et al. examined the degree of microleakage of the wet bond self-adhesive composite and reported that the microleakage of the self-adhesive composite was significantly lower than that of the conventional composite at the gingival margin; however, the microleakage of the conventional composite was significantly lower than that of the self-adhesive composite at the occlusal margin (9). On the other hand, in our study, there was no difference between the occlusal microleakage of the conventional and self-adhesive composites, probably due to lower pH and higher acidity of the GPDM monomer in the Vertise Flow composite, resulting in better etching and subsequent bonding to the enamel.

Some studies have reported that the storage of restored teeth in water increases the marginal adaptation and decreases the microleakage due to hygroscopic expansion. It has been shown that the Vertise Flow has high water sorption and higher hygroscopic dimensional changes that decrease the microleakage. In addition, Vertise Flow contains fluoride ions, which have been shown to increase the durability of the bond after aging in water (33). Increased bond strength may be due to the reaction of fluoride with adhesive components that causes dentin remineralization. The use of self-adhesive resin may form non-infiltrated and partially demineralized dentin. It has been claimed that the acidic monomer creates a space containing insoluble calcium and phosphorus during the self-etch process. Fluoride-releasing cements release fluoride into this space and decrease the risk of tooth demineralization. A similar effect has been observed in the use of self-adhesive fluoride-containing composites that can protect the adhesive tooth-restoration interface after aging (34).

Farmer et al. in 2014 revealed that the marginal leakage of a self-adhesive composite was higher in the dentin surface and lower in the enamel surface in comparison with glass ionomer, which is consistent with our findings (35). In the present study, the degree of microleakage in glass ionomer was numerically higher at the enamel margin in comparison with the self-adhesive composite due to the weaker acidity of glass ionomer than the self-adhesive composite and weaker bond to enamel; however, the leakage was greater at the dentin margin due to the chemical bonding of glass ionomer and calcium, compared to the self-adhesive composite.

Conclusion:

The microleakage of self-adhesive composite, self-adhesive composite with separate etching and bonding, flowable composite, and glass ionomer cement was the same at both dentin and enamel margins.

Conflict of interest:

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Acknowledgment:

None

References

  1. Davari A, Hajizadeh H, Sharifikhatoonabadi H. An evaluation on the effects of 37% phosphoric acid and self – etching primer on shear bond strength of enamel. J Iran Dent Assoc .2005;17(2):68-75.
  2. Hasija M, Wadhwa D, Miglani S, Meena B, Ansari I, Kohli S. Analysis and comparison of stress distribution in class V restoration with different restorative materials using finite element analysis. Endodontology. 2014;26(2):301-304.
  3. Moezizadeh M, Kazemipour M. Effect of different placement techniques on microleakage of class V composite restorations. Frontiers in Dentistry( J Dent (Tehran)). 2009;6(9):121-129.
  4. Jang K, Chung D, Shin D, Garcia-Godoy F. Effect of eccentric load cycling on microleakage of Class V flowable and packable composite resin restorations. Oper Dent. 2001;26(6):603-608.
  5. Yazici AR, Celik C, Dayangac B, Ozgunaltay G. Effects of different light curing units/modes on the microleakage of flowable composite resins.
    Eur J Dent. 2008;2(04):240-246.
  6. Xie H, Zhang F, Wu Y, Chen C, Liu W. Dentine bond strength and microleakage of flowable composite, compomer and glass ionomer cement. Aust Dent J. 2008;53(4):325-331.
  7. Santini A, Ivanovic V, Ibbetson R, Milia E. Influence of cavity configuration on microleakage around class v restorations bonded with seven self‐etching adhesives. J Esthet Restor Dent 2004;16(2):128-135.
  8. Brackett MG, Brackett WW, Haisch LD. Microleakage of Class V resin composites placed using self-etching resins: effect of prior enamel etching. Quintessence Int. 2006;37(2):109-13.
  9. Asefzadeh F, Jamshidian M, Valaee N. Microleakage of wetbond self adhesive composite in class V cavities. J Mash Dent Sch. 2010;34(2):99-108.
  10. Naga AA, Yousef M, Ramadan R, Fayez Bahgat S, Alshawwa L. Does the use of a novel self-adhesive flowable composite reduce nanoleakage? Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2015;7:55-64.
  11. Miyasaka T, Okamura H. Dimensional change measurements of conventional and flowable composite resins using a laser displacement sensor. Dent Mater J 2009;28(5):544-551.
  12. Attar N, Tam LE, McComb D. Flow, strength, stiffness and radiopacity of flowable resin composites. J Can Dent Assoc. 2003;69(8):516-521.
  13. Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Polymerization shrinkage and contraction stress of dental resin composites. Dent Mater. 2005;21(12):1150-1157.
  14. Qin M, Liu H. Clinical evaluation of a flowable resin composite and flowable compomer for preventive resin restorations. Oper Dent 2005;30(5):580-587.
  15. Sadeghi M. An in vitro microleakage study of class V cavities restored with a new self-adhesive flowable composite resin versus different flowable materials. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2012;9(4):460-465.
  16. Bektas OO, Eren D, Akin EG, Akin H. Evaluation of a self-adhering flowable composite in terms of micro-shear bond strength and microleakage. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013;71(3-4):541-546.
  17. Gayatri C, Rambabu T, Sajjan G, Battina P, Priyadarshini MS, Sowjanya BL. Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation of a Self-Adhering Flowable Composite Resin Liner: A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018;9(Suppl 2):S240-s245.
  18. Almaz ME, Oba AA, Sönmez IŞ, Sönmez D. Comparison of shear bond strength of self-adhering flowable composite with different flowable composites to dentin. Eur J Gen Dent. 2016;5(1):6-10.
  19. Baracco B, Fuentes M, Garrido MA, Gonzalez-Lopez S, Ceballos L. ISO/TS 11405: Dental materials-testing of adhesion to tooth structure. ISO/TS 11405: Dental materials-testing of adhesion to tooth structure, 2003. Odontology. 2013;101(2):177-185.
  20. Shadman N, Pezeshki B, Rostami S. Marginal Sealing of Bulk Fill versus Conventional Composites in Class II Composite Restorations: An In Vitro Study. Front Dent. 2020;17.
  21. Rengo C, Goracci C, Juloski J, Chieffi N, Giovannetti A, Vichi A, et al. Influence of phosphoric acid etching on microleakage of a self-etch adhesive and a self-adhering composite. Aust Dent J. 2012;57(2):220-226.
  22. Alonso RCB, Sinhoreti MAC, Correr Sobrinho L, Consani S, Goes MFd. Effect of resin liners on the microleakage of class V dental composite restorations. J Appl Oral Sci 2004;12(1):56-61.
  23. Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Mine A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL. State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater. 2011;27(1):17-28.
  24. Li H, Huang Y, Zhou X, Zhu C, Han Q, Wang H, et al. Intelligent pH-responsive dental sealants to prevent long-term microleakage. Dent Mater J 2021;37(10):1529-1541.
  25. Yazici AR, Baseren M, Dayangaç B. The effect of flowable resin composite on microleakage in class V cavities. Oper Dent. 2003;28(1):42-46.
  26. Cal E, Uzer Celik E, Turkun M. Performance of self-adhesive luting-resins on microleakage of Empress-2 inlay restorations: IADR. In: AADR/CADR 87th General Session and Exhibition. Miami, Florida. 2009. p. 1-4.
  27. Poitevin A, De Munck J, Van Ende A, Suyama Y, Mine A, Peumans M, et al. Bonding effectiveness of self-adhesive composites to dentin and enamel. Dent Mater. 2013;29(2):221-230.
  28. Cengiz T, Ünal M. Comparison of microtensile bond strength and resin–dentin interfaces of two self‐adhesive flowable composite resins by using different universal adhesives: Scanning electron microscope study. Microsc Res Tech. 2019;82(7):1032-1040.
  29. Miyazaki M, Sato M, Onose H. Durability of enamel bond strength of simplified bonding systems. Oper Dent. 2000;25(2):75-80.
  30. Gorseta K, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Vrazic T, Glavina D. An In-Vitro Analysis of Microleakage of Self-Adhesive Fissure Sealant vs. Conventional and GIC Fissure Sealants. dent j. 2019;7(2):3-8.
  31. Ferreira JC, Pires PT, Azevedo AF, Oliveira SA, Melo PR, Silva MJ. Influence of solvents and composition of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems on the nanoleakage within the hybrid layer. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013;14(4):691-699.
  32. Lane B, Vandewalle K, Lackland AFB. Microleakage of a New Self-Adhesive Flowable Cervical Restorative Composite Resin. . In: IADR/AADR/CADR 87th General Session and Exhibition; 2009.
  33. Shimizu S, Kotake H, Takagaki T, Shinno K, Miyata S, Burrow MF, et al. Evaluation of bonding performance and multi-ion release of S-PRG fillercontaining self-adhesive resin composite. Dent Mater J. 2021;40(5):1257-1263.
  34. Celik EU, Kucukyilmaz E, Savas S. Effect of different surface pre-treatment methods on the microleakage of two different self-adhesive composites in Class V cavities. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2015;16(1):33-38.
  35. Farmer SN, Ludlow SW, Donaldson ME, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A. Microleakage of composite and two types of glass ionomer restorations with saliva contamination at different steps. Pediatr Dent. 2014;36(1):7-14.
Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques
Volume 11, Issue 4
December 2022
Pages 249-256

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics