Effect of three surface sealants on marginal sealing of Class V composite resin restorations

• Published in: Operative dentistry Vol. 25; no. 5; p. 448
• Main Authors: Ramos, R P, Chimello, D T, Chinelatti, M A, Dibb, R G, Mondelli, J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.09.2000
• Subjects: Bicuspid; Coloring Agents; Composite Resins - chemistry; Dental Bonding; Dental Cavity Preparation - classification; Dental Cementum - ultrastructure; Dental Enamel - ultrastructure; Dental Leakage - classification; Dental Marginal Adaptation; Dental Polishing; Dental Restoration, Permanent - classification; Humans; Materials Testing; Resin Cements - chemistry; Silver Nitrate; Single-Blind Method; Statistics, Nonparametric; Surface Properties; Thermodynamics; Zinc Phosphate Cement - chemistry
• ISSN: 0361-7734

This study evaluated in vitro the effectiveness of three different surface sealants (Fortify, Protect-it! and Optiguard) on the marginal sealing of Class V light-activated composite resin restorations (Prodigy). For this purpose, 20 sound noncarious human premolars extracted within a six-month period were selected. Class V cavities with the occlusal margin in enamel and cervical margin in cementum were prepared in both buccal and lingual surfaces. The teeth, randomly assigned in four groups with 10 cavities in each group, were restored with composite resin after applying an adhesive system (Optibond FL). After the finishing and polishing procedures, the restorations were covered with a specific surface sealant, except for the control samples, which were not sealed. After placing restorations, the specimens were thermocycled and immersed in a 50% silver nitrate solution (tracer agent) for eight hours, sectioned longitudinally and analyzed for leakage using an optical microscope in a blind study with three examiners. The marginal microleakage was evaluated at the occlusal and cervical interfaces and compared among the four groups using the Kruskall-Wallis and the Wilcoxon Tests. There was better sealing at the occlusal margin, and in this region, there were no statistically significant differences among the materials (p > 0.05). In the cervical region, Fortify and Protect-it! showed improved results over the Control Group, and Optiguard showed similar results to the Control Group (without sealing).