Influence of the adhesive strategy in the sealing ability of resin composite inlays after deep margin elevation.

Abstract

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to determine the influence of the gingival margin position and the adhesive strategy selected to perform deep margin elevation (DME) in marginal sealing of resin composite inlays by a nanoleakage test. Material and Methods12 sound third molars were selected and expulsive MOD cavities for inlays were prepared. Experimental groups were established according to gingival margin location (enamel: 1 mm above cemento-enamel junction (CEJ), dentin: 1 mm below CEJ, or DME, and the adhesive strategy used to lute inlays and elevate the gingival margin. Therefore, the six experimental groups were: 1) Enamel + etch-and-rinse adhesive (ERA) Adper Scotchbond 1XT (SB1XT); 2) Dentin + SB1XT; 3) DME + SB1XT; 4) Enamel + self-etching adhesive (SEA) with enamel selective etching Clearfil SE Bond (CSE); 5) Dentin + CSE; 6) DME + CSE. Resin composite inlays were constructed (Gradia Indirect) and all luted with the same resin cement (RelyX ARC). Specimens were submitted to nanoleakage test. Results were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni correction (p<0.05). ResultsA perfect sealing ability was evidenced for experimental groups with gingival margins on enamel. Similar nanoleakage values were determined when CSE adhesive was applied regardless the gingival margin position. The highest silver nitrate infiltration was detected for elevated margins with the ERA SB1XT. ConclusionsThe SEA Clearfil SE Bond showed higher sealing ability than the ERA Adper Scotchbond 1XT when margins were located on dentin, regardless margin elevation. Gingival margins on enamel together with enamel acid etching provided an excellent sealing with both adhesive systems. Key words:Adhesion, composite inlays, gingival margin, deep margin elevation, marginal seal, nanoleakage test.