• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.47 no.2
• /
• pp.182-190
• /
• 2009

Statement of problem: Microleakage at the occlusal and gingival margin of Class V cavities restored with composite resin has traditionally been considered an obstacle to successful restoration. Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of three different surface sealants(Fortify, Permaseal and Biscover LV) on the marginal sealing of Class V light-activated composite resin restorations(Z250). Material and methods: Forty noncarious human premolars and molars extracted within a three-month period were selected. Class V cavities with the occlusal margin in enamel and gingival margin in cementum were prepared in both buccal and lingual surfaces. The teeth, randomly assigned in four groups with twenty cavities in each group, were restored with composite resin after applying an adhesive system(Clearfil SE bond). After the finishing and polishing procedures, the restorations were covered with a specific surface sealants, except for the control samples, which were not sealed. After placing restorations, the specimens were thermocycled, and immersed in a 2% methylene blue solution for twenty four hours and sectioned longitudinally. The marginal microleakage was evaluated at the occlusal and gingival interfaces using a microscope and compared among the four groups using ANOVA test and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test($\alpha$=0.05). Results: Statistical analysis showed that there was significantly less leakage when the surface sealants were used than there was in control group(P<.05). There were no significant differences of microleakage at occlusal and gingival margins among groups. There were no significant differences between microleakage of occlusal and gingival margins in each group. Fortify was not statistically different from control group at the gingival margin(P>.05). Conclusion: Application of surface sealants was an effective method of surface coating in reducing microleakage at occlusal and gingival margins of Class V composite resin restorations. However, it is certain that some microleakage still occurred despite the application of surface sealants, especially gingival margins.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.8 no.6
• /
• pp.417-422
• /
• 2016

PURPOSE. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the staining resistance of CAD/CAM resin-ceramics polished with different techniques and to determine the effectiveness of the polishing techniques on resin-ceramics, comparing it with that of a glazed glass-ceramic. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Four different CAD/CAM ceramics (feldspathic ceramic: C-CEREC Blocs, (SIRONA) and three resin-ceramics: L-Lava Ultimate, (3M ESPE), E-Enamic, (VITA) and CS-CeraSmart, (GC)) and one light cure composite resin: ME-Clearfil Majesty Esthetic (Kuraray) were used. Only C samples were glazed (gl). Other restorations were divided into four groups according to the polishing technique: nonpolished control group (c), a group polished with light cure liquid polish (Biscover LV BISCO) (bb), a group polished with ceramic polishing kit (Diapol, EVE) (cd), and a group polished with composite polishing kit (Clearfil Twist Dia, Kuraray) (kc). Glazed C samples and the polished samples were further divided into four subgroups and immersed into different solutions: distilled water, tea, coffee, and fermented black carrot juice. Eight samples ($8{\times}8{\times}1mm$) were prepared for each subgroup. According to CIELab system, four color measurements were made: before immersion, immersion after 1 day, after 1 week, and after 1 month. Data were analyzed with repeated measures of ANOVA (${\alpha}=.05$). RESULTS. The highest staining resistance was found in gl samples. There was no difference among gl, kc and cd (P>.05). Staining resistance of gl was significantly higher than that of bb (P<.05). Staining resistances of E and CS were significantly higher than those of L and ME (P<.05). CONCLUSION. Ceramic and composite polishing kits can be used for resin ceramics as a counterpart of glazing procedure used for full ceramic materials. Liquid polish has limited indications for resin ceramics.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.164-172
• /
• 2010

During a composite resin restoration, an anticipating contraction gap is usually tried to seal with low-viscosity resin after successive polishing, etching, rinsing and drying steps, which as a whole is called rebonding procedure. However, the gap might already have been filled with water or debris before applying the sealing resin. We hypothesized that microleakage would decrease if the rebonding agent was applied before the polishing step, i.e., immediately after curing composite resin. On the buccal and lingual surfaces of 35 extracted human molar teeth, class V cavities were prepared with the occlusal margin in enamel and the gingival margin in dentin. They were restored with a hybrid composite resin Z250 (3M ESPE, USA) using an adhesive AdperTM Single Bond 2 (3M ESPE). As rebonding agents, BisCover LV (Bisco, USA), ScotchBond Multi-Purpose adhesive (3M ESPE) and an experimental adhesive were applied on the restoration margins before polishing step or after successive polishing and etching steps. The infiltration depth of 2% methylene blue into the margin was measured using an optical stereomicroscope. The correlation between viscosity of rebonding agents and mciroleakage was also evaluated. There were no statistically significant differences in the microleakage within the rebonding procedures, within the rebonding agents, and within the margins. However, when the restorations were not rebonded, the microleakage at gingival margin was significantly higher than those groups rebonded with 3 agents (p < 0.05). The difference was not observed at the occlusal margin. No significant correlation was found between viscosity of rebonding agents and microleakage, except very weak correlation in case of rebonding after polishing and etching at gingival margin.