![Sample our Physical Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110819/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Physical-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Aim: The aim was to compare the microleakage of resin composite bonded with different adhesive systems in class-II cavities at enamel or dentine margins. Material and methods: 60 extracted human molar teeth received slot cavity preparations on mesial and distal surfaces (mesial cervical margin was prepared in enamel and distal in dentine). They were randomly divided into five groups (n = 12) according to the adhesive system: Group-A: Silorane Bond (S), Group-B: Adper Single Bond 2 (SB), Group-C: Clearfil SE Bond (CSE), Group-D: Single Bond Universal (USel) (selective etch-and-rinse), Group-E: Single Bond Universal (USE) (all-in-one). The preparations were restored using the same resin composite (Filtek Ultimate) except Group A which was restored by Silorane composite. The teeth were thermocycled, immersed in dye, sectioned, and dye penetration was evaluated quantitatively using image analysis. The data were analyzed using the two-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni test. Results: In all groups, there was no statistically significant difference between enamel margins at occlusal and gingival sites (p > 0.05). The statistical difference between Group-A (S) and Group-B (SB) was significant at all margins. Group-B (SB) presented the greatest microleakage amounts at all margins and the highest scores were obtained in the dentine. Likewise, SB demonstrated statistically significant differences between dentine and enamel margins (occlusal and gingival)(p < 0.05). Conclusion: All adhesive systems showed similar microleakage values between enamel margins in occlusal and gingival regions. However, when the gingival margin is located in the dentine, etch&rinse adhesive systems may not be a choice in terms of microleakage prevention.