Indian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental Research
HOME | ABOUT US | EDITORIAL BOARD | AHEAD OF PRINT | CURRENT ISSUE | ARCHIVES | INSTRUCTIONS | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISE | CONTACT
Indian Journal of Dental Research   Login   |  Users online: 1113

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size         

 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL RESEARCH  
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 23  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 378-383
Marginal microleakage of resin-modified glass-ionomer and composite resin restorations: Effect of using etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives


Dental Materials Research Center and Department of Operative Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission22-Jan-2011
Date of Decision21-May-2011
Date of Acceptance20-Sep-2011
Date of Web Publication11-Oct-2012
 

   Abstract 

Objectives: Previous studies have shown that dental adhesives increase the bond strength of resin-modified glass-ionomer (RMGI) restorative materials to dentin. This in vitro study has evaluated the effect of etch-and-rinse and self-etch bonding systems v/s cavity conditioner, and in comparison to similar composite resin restorations on maintaining the marginal sealing of RMGI restorations.
Materials and Methods: 98 rectangular cavities (2.5×3×1.5 mm) were prepared on buccal and palatal aspects of 49 human maxillary premolars, randomly divided into 7 groups (N=14). The cavities in groups 1, 2 and 3 were restored using a composite resin (APX). The cavities in groups 4, 5, 6 and 7 were restored using a resin-modified glass-ionomer (Fuji II LC). Before restoring, adhesive systems (Optibond FL = OFL, three-step etch-and-rinse; One Step Plus = OSP, two-step etch-and-rinse; Clearfil Protect Bond = CPB, two-step self-etch) were used as bonding agents in groups 1-6 as follow: OFL in groups 1 and 4, OSP in groups 2 and 5, and CPB in groups 3 and 6, respectively. The specimens in group 7 were restored with GC cavity conditioner and Fuji II LC. All the specimens were thermo-cycled for 1000 cycles. Microleakage scores were determined using dye penetration method. Statistical analyzes were carried out with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (α=0.05).
Results: There were significant differences in microleakage scores at both enamel and dentinal margins between the study groups (P<0.05). The lowest microleakage scores at enamel and dentin margins of RMGI restorations were observed in group 6.
Conclusion: Use of two-step self-etch adhesive, prior to restoring cervical cavities with RMGIC, seems to be more efficacious than the conventional cavity conditioner in decreasing marginal microleakage.

Keywords: Etch-and-rinse adhesives, microleakage, resin-modified glass-ionomer, self-etch adhesives

How to cite this article:
Khoroushi M, Karvandi TM, Kamali B, Mazaheri H. Marginal microleakage of resin-modified glass-ionomer and composite resin restorations: Effect of using etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives. Indian J Dent Res 2012;23:378-83

How to cite this URL:
Khoroushi M, Karvandi TM, Kamali B, Mazaheri H. Marginal microleakage of resin-modified glass-ionomer and composite resin restorations: Effect of using etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives. Indian J Dent Res [serial online] 2012 [cited 2020 Jul 8];23:378-83. Available from: http://www.ijdr.in/text.asp?2012/23/3/378/102234
Since the introduction of glass-ionomer cement by Wilson and Kent, [1] these materials have undergone numerous modifications and improvements. The incorporation of methacrylate groups into the chemical structure of conventional glass-ionomers, which led to the marketing of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RMGIC), have improved the handling and working characteristics of such cements, [2] and have reduced their brittleness and moisture sensitivity, resulting in increased bond strengths to tooth structures. [2],[3]

The powder in these hybrid cements is predominantly composed of an ion-leachable glass and the liquid consists of 4 principal ingredients: A methacrylate resin, which is responsible for the setting reaction by polymerization; a polyacid, which reacts with the ion-leachable glass to precipitate the setting reaction by an acid-base mechanism; hydroxy ethyl methacrylate (HEMA), which is a hydro­philic methacrylate enabling both the resin and acid components to co-exist in an aqueous solution; HEMA also participates in the polymerization reaction; and finally, water, which is an essential component necessary for an ionization of the acid com­ponent so that the acid-base reaction can take place. [3]

In addition to their improved mechanical properties and esthetics, [4],[5] RMGICs have various advantages, including more moisture contamination tolerance, diminished post-operative sensitivity, [6] and the potential to release fluoride. [3] Moreover, RMGICs open new horizons for various applications, including the so-called open sandwich technique. These materials are considered good substitutes for dentin in deep-seated cavities due to their appropriate physical properties, while resin composite is a suitable substitute for an enamel because of its superior strength, surface integrity, and esthetics. [6],[7]

Numerous studies have demonstrated that RMGICs self-adhere to tooth structures, but with a level of adhesion less than that obtained with composite restorations bonded with adhesive systems. [8],[9] As a matter of fact, the bond strength of RMGICs to dentin is inconsistent when the smear layer is present, [10] which might be attributed to the fact that the smear layer is subject to cohesive failure as a result of polymerization shrinkage. [11] Pre-treatment with polyacrylic acid eliminates the smear layer, improving the bond strengths of RMGICs to tooth structures. [12]

Given the above-mentioned facts, some authors have evaluated RMGIC bond to dentin with self-etching adhesive systems and have reported improved bond strengths. [13],[14],[15],[16],[17] Pereira et al. reported that, the use of adhesive systems prior to the application of RMGIC can significantly improve their bond strength. [14] Furthermore, Besnault et al. reported that, an application of self-etching adhesives increases the dentin shear bond strength of RMGICs, which is dependent on the adhesive system, with a range of 50% to 130%. [16] Recently, Geerts et al. recommended the pre-treatment of dentin with certain self-etching adhesive systems before filling with RMGIC, as an alternative to the conventional dentin conditioner. [17]

Since tooth-colored RMGICs are considered appropriate candidates for the restoration of cervical lesions with enamel and/or dentinal margins in the area, especially in high- and medium-caries risk patients, lack of sufficient evidence on the subject prompted this in vitro study to investigate the hypothesis that an application of a dental adhesive, including etch-and-rinse or self-etching systems instead of a conventional cavity conditioner and in comparing with common composite resins, could affect the marginal microleakage of RMGIC restorations. Therefore, the null hypothesis of this study was that, there is no difference between application of dental adhesives including etch-and-rinse or self-etching systems instead of a conventional cavity conditioner on the marginal microleakage of a RMGIC restoration.


   Materials and Methods Top


Following appropriate University Human Research Ethics Board approval, 49 freshly-extracted sound human premolars were collected and stored in 0.2% thymol solution for 2 months before the study. All of the teeth had been extracted for orthodontic reasons from patients 14 to 25 years of age. Subsequent to cleaning all the teeth with a brush and pumice/water slurry, 2 rectangular cavities (H × W × D =2 mm × 3 mm × 1.5 mm) were prepared on each tooth at the cemento-enamel junction with a cylindrical diamond bur with a diameter of 0.8 mm. The margins of the cavities were butt-jointed, half in an enamel and half in the root dentin. The teeth were randomly and equally divided into 7 groups, with 7 teeth and 14 cavities in each group.

The cavities in groups 1, 2 and 3 and also the cavities in groups 4, 5, and 6 were pre-treated with 3 different adhesive systems before being filled with the same composite resin or RMGI, respectively, as follows:

  • In groups 1 and 4, the cavities were pre-treated with Optibond FL (OFL) (Kerr, Orange, CA, USA), a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive.
  • In groups 2 and 5, the cavities were pre-treated with One Step Plus (OSP) (Bisco, USA), a two-step etch-and-rinse dental adhesive.
  • In groups 3 and 6, the cavities were pre-treated with Clearfil Protect Bond (CPB) (Kuraray, Osaka, Japan), a two-step self-etch dental adhesive.
  • In group 7, the cavities were conditioned with a conventional cavity conditioner (GC, Tokyo, Japan).
The prepared cavities in groups 1, 2 and 3 were restored with composite resin (APX, A2 shade, Kuraray, Osaka, Japan), and the cavities in groups 4, 5, 6 and 7 were restored with a RMGIC (Fuji II LC, GC, Tokyo, Japan). All the materials under study, including polyacrylic acid and dental adhesives were used according to manufacturer's instructions [Table 1].
Table 1: Materials used in the study and mode of their applications according to the manufacturers' instructions

Click here to view


Light-curing was carried out with the same halogen lamp (Coltolux 50, Colton/Whaldent, USA). The output of the apparatus was checked with a radiometer for, at least, an intensity of 480 mW/cm 2 during all the procedures. The compositions and application procedures of the main materials used in this study are presented in [Table 1].

After incubating the samples for 24 hours at 37°C, the restorations were finished with fine diamond drills and polished with disks (Soflex, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) under water spray. Subsequently, the specimens in all the groups were thermo-cycled at 5°/55°C for 1000 cycles with a 30-second dwell and 15-second transfer times. [18] The apices of all the samples were then sealed using utility wax; then all tooth surfaces were covered with 3 coats of nail varnish except for the restorations and 1 mm from the margins. Each group was immersed in 2% basic fuschin solution and incubated at 37°C for 24 hours. Each tooth was then cut longitudinally in a bucco-lingual direction, using a cutting machine (DENTARAPID, Krupp Dental, 759 DR 2, Hilzingen, Germany) and diamond disks (Komet, GmbH, Lemgo, Germany). Each section was examined under a stereomicroscope (MBC-10, St. Petersburg, Russia) at a magnification of ×16. All the samples were blindly observed by 2 experienced and calibrated evaluators.

The following standard scoring system [18] was applied:

0 = no microleakage
1 = penetration up to one-third of the cavity depth
2 = penetration between one-third up to two-thirds of the cavity depth
3 = penetration into more than two-thirds of the cavity depth up to the axial wall or towards the pulp

Data were analyzed by a SPSS 11.5 software program and statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (α=0.05).


   Results Top


Under study, [Table 2] and [Table 3] summarize the microleakage scores of the 7 groups. All the results were considered to be significant at the 5% critical level (P< 0.05).
Table 2: Frequency of marginal microleakage in enamel margins. N(%)

Click here to view
Table 3: Frequency of marginal microleakage in dentinal margins. N(%)

Click here to view


The Kruskal-Wallis test did show significant differences regarding an integrity of enamel (P= 0.001) and dentin (P= 0.005) margins of the 7 groups for both composite resin and RMGIC restorations. The lowest microleakage scores at enamel and dentin margins of RMGI restorations were recorded in group 6 [Table 2] and [Table 3].

In summary, enamel marginal integrity significantly increased when etch-and-rinse adhesive systems were used with composite restorations; however, the integrity of dentinal margins did significantly increase in composite restorations using self-etch adhesive. Both enamel and dentin marginal sealing significantly increased with the use of self-etch adhesive system instead of a cavity conditioner in RMGI restorations.


   Discussion Top


The results of the present study showed that, the use of adhesive systems instead of a conventional cavity conditioner improves the marginal integrity of cervical RMGIC restorations at both enamel and dentin margins, which is consistent with the results of previous studies. [14],[16],[17] In fact, the presence of resin components in adhesives and RMGI results in the establishment of covalent bonds between the two materials. In addition, the relatively low modulus of elasticity of RMGI may result in negating the shrinkage stress. [16] RMGIs bond to dentin using a two-fold bonding mechanism, which involves both, a chemical interaction and a micro-mechanical interlocking. [19] The dual-curing reaction of RMGI materials accounts for relieving the stress. The loosely cross-linked structure resulting from the methacrylate polymerization at early stages allows the stress to be absorbed by the material; further maturation occurs later, which is attributed to the relatively slower ionic reaction. [20],[21] However, it can be concluded that the dental adhesives differ from each other in this respect as a result of differences in their chemical compositions and mechanical properties.

In the current study, a cavity conditioner was used in group 7 as the control group. According to the results of the study regarding groups 4-7, the cavity conditioner was ranked lower than the dental adhesives for its dentin sealing ability. Contrary to composites, RMGIs interact chemically with tooth structures, based on an ionic binding of multiple carboxylic groups of polyalkenoic acid with calcium, which is abundantly available in hard tooth structures. [20],[22] Subsequent to an application of a cavity conditioner, micro-mechanical interlocking is achieved by infiltration of the organic tags of RMGI components into a partially de-mineralized dentin surface. Therefore, a sub-micron hybrid layer is formed, similar to the one produced by 'mild' self-etching adhesives. [19] It has not been determined; however, to what extent each of these two bonding mechanisms contributes to the final adhesion of RMGIs. Recently, Cardoso et al. reported that, the use of a polyalkenoic-acid conditioner on bur-cut dentin has a pivotal role in removing the smear layer and forming the hybrid layer. [19] Apart from creating a more intimate contact of the RMGI with the underlying dentin, the relatively partial removal of surface smear by the polyalkenoic acid may also increase dentin permeability to provide an extra source of water to directly aid the glass-ionomer acid-base setting reaction. This may facilitate GI maturation at an interface, making the RMGI-to-dentin bond more resistant to time-dependent degradation. [19],[21] Similar reactions might be occurred between dental adhesives, RMGI and dental substrates. Further studies are required to better understand the bonding mechanism of RMGICs with adhesive systems applied to the dental substrates.

In the present study, 2 types of adhesives, namely two etch-and-rinse and one self-etching adhesive systems were used. In comparison of groups 1-3, which were restored by the composite resin, the best values at enamel margins was related to OFL and OSP, PB respectively, which is consistent with the results of the other studies which prefer etch-and-rinse systems because they form stronger bonds with the cut enamel. [23],[24]

In comparison of groups 4-7, in which RMGI was used as the restorative material, the best result at enamel margins was related to PB; whereas, there were no significant differences between the other 3 groups. The use of phosphoric acid gel with a pH of <1 in 2 other adhesives did not lead to better marginal sealing of RMGI with enamel. However, etch-and-rinse systems demonstrated great marginal sealing ability with composite resin at enamel margins, which is consistent with the other studies. [23],[24] The polymerization shrinkage of RMGI is generally reported to be comparable to that of composite resins, which is approximately 3%. [3] Moreover, its different mechanism of bonding in comparison to composite resin leads to a lower enamel marginal integrity in groups 4 and 5 compared with group 6.

In groups 1-3, the least microleakage scores at dentinal margins were recorded in group 3 (i.e. PB adhesive and composite resin restoration). PB is a two-step self-etching adhesive system with a pH of 2.5. This adhesive has a functional monomer called MDPB, which has anti-bacterial activity. It contains polysiloxane-coated sodium fluoride particles. The adhesive contains NaF, which may inhibit enzymatic activity within the bonded interface. [23] Further investigations are required to evaluate the effect of incorporating anti-bacterial components and/or fluoride containing ingredients to adhesives, particularly their effect on marginal microleakage.

Another point is that, dentin marginal integrity for RMGI restorations (groups 4-7) seemed to be more affected by the kind of the adhesive system used, than those for composite restorations. Regarding dentin margins, among all the groups under study, the least microleakage score were recorded in groups 3 and 6, which were restored with PB/composite and PB/RMGI, respectively. An efficacy of the two-step self-etch systems along with their reliable and sufficient bonding with ground dentin using composite resins has been reported in previous studies. [23],[24] Regarding the result of group 6, it seems the existence of water in the composition of self-etching adhesives, as well as RMGIs, reduces their technique sensitivity, improves and develops their acidic characteristics, and improves their adhesion to dentin in RMGI restorations. [16] In accordance with the present study, Geerts et al. recently recommended the use of self-etching adhesive systems as an alternative to a conventional dentin conditioner. [17]

In the present study, in groups 1-3, composite resin was used as a more common restorative material in comparison to RMGI. The composite was placed incrementally (layering technique) in 3 steps after preparing cervical cavities, but for RMGI, the bulk restorative technique was used. Although the resin-modified glass-ionomers used for restorative applications are all light-acti­vated, many do not enjoy the long working times associated with the light-activated composites. [3] There are 3 possible justifications for this behavior. First, the acid-base reaction proceeds immediately after mixing and before an exposure to light. Second, many materials contains chemical activators and initiators which enable a chemically-­activated polymerization to proceed before an expo­sure to light. Third, some materials are very sensitive to ambient visible light. In order to achieve acceptable results with these products, it is best to carry out placement and shaping procedures immediately after mixing. In addition, 'limited depth of cure' for light-activated compos­ites has been underlined as one of the potential disadvantages of such materials. The resin-modified glass-iono­mers display a similar behavior except for the fact that an unexposed material might polymerize through an acid-base reaction or through a chemically-activated poly­merization procedure. However, only the material, prop­erly activated by light can be ideally polymerized. The concept of 'depth of cure' can, therefore, be applied to these materials. [3] Nevertheless, in situations in which the substance is not sufficiently exposed to light, an activation is precipitated by acid-base reactions and self-curing modalities. Therefore, the material has sufficient time at its disposal to relieve the shrinkage stress. However, an acidity of RMGI during mechanical mixing and insufficient light-curing with the presence of different adhesives and their interactions with each other, are the topics which require further investigations.

Considering the advantages attributed to the use of dental adhesive systems instead of conventional conditioners with RMGI restorations, further studies are required to better understand the bonding mechanism of RMGICs with adhesive systems applied to dental substrates.


   Conclusion Top


In summary, the use of the dental adhesive systems evaluated in the present study improved the marginal integrity of RMGI cervical restorations. Within the limitations of the present study, bonding RMGIC to both enamel and dentin with a two-step self-etching adhesive rather than the use of conventional cavity conditioner (polyacrylic acid) did improve marginal sealing of cervical restorations. Further studies are deemed necessary.


   Acknowledgement Top


We would like to thank Deputy Dean of Research at Isfahan University of Medical Sciences for providing financial support to this research. This report is based on a thesis which was submitted to the School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the DDS degree. (#388581)

 
   References Top

1.Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry: The glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J 1972;132:133-5.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.Mitra SB. Adhesion to dentin and physical properties of a light-cured glass-ionomer liner/base. J Dent Res 1991;70:72-4.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.Gerdolle DA, Mortier E, Droz D. Microleakage and polymerization shrinkage of various polymer restorative materials. J Dent Child 2008;75:125-33.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.Yengopal V, Mickenautsch S. Resin-modified glass-ionomer cements versus resin-based materials as fissure sealants: A meta-analysis of clinical trials. Eur Arch Pediatr Dent 2010;11:18-25.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.Sidhu SK. Clinical evaluations of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations. Dent Mater 2010;26:7-12.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.Vilkinis V, Hörsted-Bindslev P, Baelum V. Two-year evaluation of class II resin-modified glass ionomer cement/composite open sandwich and composite restorations. Clin Oral Invest 2000;4:133-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.McLean JW. Dentinal bonding agents versus glass-ionomer cements. Quint Inter 1996;27:659-67.   Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.Gallo JR, Comeaux R, Haines B, Xu X, Burgess JO. Shear bond strength of four filled dentin bonding systems Oper Dent 2001;26:44-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Mitchell CH. Dental Materials in Operative Dentistry. Chapter 4, London: Quint Pub Co; 2008. p. 51-67.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Hewlett ER, Caputo AA, Wrobel DC. Glass ionomer bond strength and treatment of dentin with polyacrylic acid. J Prosth Dent 1991;66:767-72.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.Tao L, Pashley DH. Shear bond strengths to dentin: effects of surface treatments, depth and position. Dent Mater 1988;4:371-8.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Tantbirojn D, Rusin RP, Bui HT, Mitra SB. Inhibition of dentin demineralization adjacent to a glass-ionomer/composite sandwich restoration. Quintessence Int 2009;40:287-94.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.Nakanuma K, Hayakawa T, Tomita T, Yamazaki M. Effect of the application of dentin primers and a dentin bonding agent on the adhesion between the resin-modified glass-ionomer cement and dentin. Dent Mater 1998;14:281-6.  Back to cited text no. 13
[PUBMED]    
14.Pereira PN, Yamada T, Inokoshi S, Burrow MF, Sano H, Tagami J. Adhesion of resin-modified glass ionomer cements using resin bonding systems. J Dent 1998;26:479-85.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]    
15.Schittly E, Besnault C, Bouter D, Ruse ND, Degrange M, Attal JP. Influence of self-etching primer preapplication on the dentin-titanium shear bond strength mediated by a resin-modified glass-lonomer cement. Int J Prosthodont 2005;18:112-6.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]    
16.Besnault C, Attal JP, Ruse D, Degrange M. Self-etching adhesives improve the shear bond strength of a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2004;6:55-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
[PUBMED]    
17.Geerts SO, Seidel L, Albert AI, Gueders AM. Microleakage after thermocycling of three self-etch adhesives under resin-modified glass-ionomer cement restorations. Int J Dent Epub 2010;6:1-6.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Khoroushi M, Fardashtaki SR. Effect of light-activated bleaching on the microleakage of Class V tooth-colored restorations. Oper Dent 2009;34:565-70.  Back to cited text no. 18
[PUBMED]    
19.Cardoso MV, Delmé KI, Mine A, Neves Ade A, Coutinho E, De Moor RJ, et al. Towards a better understanding of the adhesion mechanism of resin-modified glass-ionomers by bonding to differently prepared dentin. J Dent 2010;38:921-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Mitra SB, Lee CY, Bui HT, Tantbirojn D, Rusin RP. Long-term adhesion and mechanism of bonding of a paste-liquid resin-modified glass-ionomer. Dent Mater 2009;25:459-66.  Back to cited text no. 20
[PUBMED]    
21.Pereira PN, Yamada T, Tei R, Tagami J. Bond strength and interface micromorphology of an improved resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Am J Dent 1997;10:128-32.  Back to cited text no. 21
[PUBMED]    
22.Van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. Long-term dentin retention of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater 2008;24:915-22.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]    
23.Van Landuyt KL, De Munck J, Mine A, Cardoso MV, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B. Filler debonding and subhybrid-layer failures in self-etch adhesives. J Dent Res 2010;89:1045-50.   Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]    
24.Sarr M, Kane AW, Vreven J, Mine A, Van Landuyt KL, Peumans M, et al. Microtensile bond strength and interfacial characterization of 11 contemporary adhesives bonded to bur-cut dentin. Oper Dent 2010;35 : 94-104.  Back to cited text no. 24
[PUBMED]    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Maryam Khoroushi
Dental Materials Research Center and Department of Operative Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Grant number: 388581, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.102234

Rights and Permissions



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]

This article has been cited by
1 In vitro evaluation of microleakage in primary teeth restored with three adhesive materials: ACTIVA™, composite resin, and resin-modified glass ionomer
A. I. Amaireh,S. H. Al-Jundi,H. A. Alshraideh
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. 2019; 20(4): 359
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 In vitro evaluation of microleakage in primary teeth restored with three adhesive materials: ACTIVA™, composite resin, and resin-modified glass ionomer
A. I. Amaireh,S. H. Al-Jundi,H. A. Alshraideh
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. 2019; 20(4): 359
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Bacterial microleakage of temporary filling materials used for endodontic access cavity sealing
Igor Križnar,Katja Seme,Aleš Fidler
Journal of Dental Sciences. 2016; 11(4): 394
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Marginal microleakage of cervical composite resin restorations bonded using etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives: two dimensional vs. three dimensional methods
Maryam Khoroushi,Ailin Ehteshami
Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics. 2016; 41(2): 83
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 Marginal microleakage of cervical composite resin restorations bonded using etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives: two dimensional vs. three dimensional methods
Maryam Khoroushi,Ailin Ehteshami
Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics. 2016; 41(2): 83
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 Marginal Leakage of Class V Composite Restorations Assessed Using Microcomputed Tomography and Scanning Electron Microscope
C Rengo,C Goracci,G Ametrano,N Chieffi,G Spagnuolo,S Rengo,M Ferrari
Operative Dentistry. 2015; 40(4): 440
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
7 Effect of Adhesive Pretreatments on Marginal Sealing of Aged Nano-ionomer Restorations
Fereshteh Shafiei,Sahar Akbarian,Mohammad Karim Etminan
Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects. 2015; 9(3): 144
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
8 Effect of Adhesive Pretreatments on Marginal Sealing of Aged Nano-ionomer Restorations
Fereshteh Shafiei,Sahar Akbarian,Mohammad Karim Etminan
Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects. 2015; 9(3): 144
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
9 Marginal Leakage of Class V Composite Restorations Assessed Using Microcomputed Tomography and Scanning Electron Microscope
C Rengo,C Goracci,G Ametrano,N Chieffi,G Spagnuolo,S Rengo,M Ferrari
Operative Dentistry. 2015; 40(4): 440
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
10 Microleakage of Nanofilled Resin-modified Glass-ionomer/Silorane- or Methacrylate-based Composite Sandwich Class II Restoration: Effect of Simultaneous Bonding
F Shafiei,S Akbarian
Operative Dentistry. 2014; 39(1): E22
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
11 Fracture Resistance of Premolar Teeth Restored with Silorane-Based or Dimethacrylate-Based Composite Resins
Golsa Akbarian,Hamideh Ameri,Joseph E. Chasteen,Marjaneh Ghavamnasiri
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2013; : n/a
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


    Abstract
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
   Acknowledgement
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed6216    
    Printed162    
    Emailed10    
    PDF Downloaded248    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 11    

Recommend this journal