Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Sep;7(Suppl 1):S060-S065.
doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.119075.

Effect of operator variability on microleakage with different adhesive systems

Emel Karaman  1 , A Ruya Yazici  2 , Burak Aksoy  3 , Erdem Karabulut  4 , Gul Ozgunaltay  2 , Berrin Dayangac  2
Affiliations

Effect of operator variability on microleakage with different adhesive systems

Emel Karaman et al. Eur J Dent. 2013 Sep.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of operator variability on microleakage with different adhesive systems.

Materials and methods: A total of 180 standardized Class V cavities were prepared on facial and lingual of 90 extracted human premolar teeth and randomly assigned to five groups according to the adhesive systems used (n = 36): Prime and Bond NT (PB), Single Bond (SB), Futura Bond NR, Xeno III (XE) and Adper Prompt-L-Pop (LP). The adhesive groups were then further subdivided into three operator groups according to level of clinical experience (n = 12): An undergraduate student, a research assistant and a faculty member. All cavities were restored with same composite resin. The restored teeth were thermocycled (500 cycles, 5-55°C) then immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin and measured for leakage under a stereomicroscope. Statistical analyses were performed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests.

Results: Significant inter-operator variation was found in the enamel margins in the XE group with significantly higher microleakage when used by the undergraduate student (P < 0.05). Although no significant differences in microleakage were found between adhesive systems for the research assistant and faculty member (P > 0.05), significant differences were observed between PB and LP, PB and XE, SB and LP and SB and XE in the enamel margins for the undergraduate student (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: Microleakage of adhesive systems is more dependent on interactions between the operator and adhesive material than on the choice of adhesive material.

Keywords: Dentin bonding; microleakage; operator variability.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of the study
Figure 2
Figure 2
Schematic illustration of dye penetration scores
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Celik C, Arhun N, Yamanel K. Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: 12-month results. Eur J Dent. 2010;4:57–65. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitão J, et al. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007;138:775–83. - PubMed
    1. Cenci M, Demarco F, de Carvalho R. Class II composite resin restorations with two polymerization techniques: Relationship between microtensile bond strength and marginal leakage. J Dent. 2005;33:603–10. - PubMed
    1. Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: Not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater. 2012;28:87–101. - PubMed
    1. de Almeida JB, Platt JA, Oshida Y, Moore BK, Cochran MA, Eckert GJ. Three different methods to evaluate microleakage of packable composites in Class II restorations. Oper Dent. 2003;28:453–60. - PubMed