ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res.

10(03), 1107-1111

Journal Homepage: - [Link]

Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/14496

DOI URL: [Link]

RESEARCH ARTICLE
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF MICROLEAKAGE OF NEWER GENERATION OF DENTIN
BONDING AGENTS IN CLASS V CAVITY: A DYE PENETRATION STUDY

Dr. Tejas Ghone, Dr. Meenakshi Verma, Dr. Ashish Jain, Dr. Rahul Rao, Dr. Nidhi Sahani and Dr. Shwetank
Shrivastava
……………………………………………………………………………………………………....
Manuscript Info Abstract
……………………. ………………………………………………………………
Manuscript History Aims: This study aims to evaluate the microleakage (ML) of the newer
Received: 25 January 2022 generations bonding agents in Class V Cavity.
Final Accepted: 28 February 2022 Materials and Methods: Thirty six mandibular premolars were
Published: March 2022 randomly divided into three groups: Group I (n = 12)-bonded with
GlumaBond5, Group II (n = 12) with G-Bond and Group III (n = 12)
with Single Bond Universal Adhesive. Class V box cavity was
prepared on the buccal surface and restored with composite resin with
recommended each group’s specific bonding protocol for each
adhesive. ML testing were conducted, Rhodamine B and
stereomicroscope was used to measure microleakage and data analyzed.
Kruskal–Wallis analysis was done to statistically differentiate the ML
between the three experimental groups. Intergroup comparison was
made using the Mann–Whitney U test and the level of significance was
set at p<0.05.
Results :Single Bond Universal Adhesive showed maximum resistance
to microleakage followed by GlumaBond5 and G- Bond and this
difference is statistically significant(p<0.05). Mann–Whitney U test
shows statistically significant difference between Group II and Group
III. (p<0.05).
Conclusions: Within this study’s limitation, composite resin bonded
with Single Bond Universal Adhesive showed maximumresistance to
ML followed by GlumaBond5 and G-Bond.

Copy Right, IJAR, 2022,. All rights reserved.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………....
Introduction:-
In the beginning of the era of restorative dentistry, retention and stabilization of restoration often required the
removal of sound tooth structure to provide large undercuts to make auxiliary retention aids. This problem was
greatly solved with the introduction of Composite material and newer bonding systems in adhesive dentistry. 1

Resin-based composites obtain their retention, most notably by micromechanical adhesion to the structure of the
tooth. The implementation of the etch and rinse method was the most productive technique to achieve sufficient
resin composite bonding to the enamel. However, rinsing and drying of the tooth, makes the procedure tedious and
technically [Link] recent trend in adhesive products is to simplify the process into two steps or even one
steps to make it user friendly and time saving2

Corresponding Author:- Dr. Tejas Ghone 1107

ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 10(03), 1107-1111

Currently the 7th generation dentin bonding agents combine an etchant, primer, and adhesive in one container
compared to the total‑etch or etch and rinse systems, where separate etchant, primer, and adhesive monomers are
utilized. They are called as self‑etching or all in one adhesive require no mixing and thus are time‑saving.

Further, modification has been achieved by introducing the “8 th generation dentin bonding agent, which can be used
in total etch, selective etch and self etch mode . This is a new simple dose delivery system in which the solvent
evaporation does not take place so as to ensure an immediate stick effect which guarantees that the bond will not be
blown out of the cavity while air drying. This has resulted in a superior marginal integrity and protection against
dentinal sensitivities2.

The longevity of a restoration requires a good marginal seal, strength of material, biocompatibility, resistance to
fracture etc., Microleakage has been recognized as the major clinical problem with composite [Link], this
study was aimed to determine and compare the microleakage of the 5th , 7th , and 8th generation dentin bonding
[Link] manuscript is designed according to CRIS guidelines.

Materials And Methods:-

This study protocol has been approved by Scientific Review Committee(SRC).Thirty Six mandibular premolar
teeth were extracted for orthodontic or periodontal reasons were used in the study. Teeth were randomly assigned
to three experimental group. Teeth were cleaned of debris using ultrasonic scaler and stored in 0.1% Thymol
solution till use . Class V cavities (3 mm × 2 mm × 1.5 mm) were prepared on the buccalsurfaces of teeth, with a
high-speed airotor, 1 mm above CEJ using no.2 diamond [Link] were standardized using Williams
graduated periodontal probe . The prepared cavity was then be rinsed thoroughly with air/water spray and dried.
Application of bonding agent Bonding agents wasdone in all the experimental groups according to the
manufacturer’s instructionsand cured for 20 sec using Bluephase curing light.

Group I :Sample teeth in this group were bonded with GlumaBond5 . First, the37 % phosphoric acid etchant was
applied thoroughly on the prepared cavity for 10-15sec, rinsed for 20sec and blot dried. An even layer of bonding
agent was applied generously and thoroughly with the help of an applicator tip on the entire surface for 10 [Link]
bond was allowed to dwell for 10-15 [Link] with help of gentle drying for 5 sec the excess solvent was allowed to
evaporate, Making sure no excess [Link] bond was then cured for 10 [Link] curing the surface should show
a uniform glossy appearance.

Group II: Sample teeth in this group were bonded with G-BOND (7th generation, self-etching, light-cured dental
adhesive) which is supplied in an easy squeeze bottle. With an applicator tip, one coat of the bonding agent was
applied on the prepared cavity, left undisturbed for 20 sec, dried with air for 5 sec , and then light cured for another
10 sec.

Group III Sample teeth in this group was bonded with Single Bond Universal Adhesive (8th generation) which was
applied by rubbing using an applicator tip for 20sec then gently air dried for 5 sec and light cured for 10sec.

All the Class V preparations was restored with a nanohybrid composite restorative (3M ESPE FiltekTMZ250XT ) in
two increments and light cured for 20 secs and then finished using a 10 fluted carbide bur (SS white) and polished
using the shofu composite polishing kit.

The prepared samples was subjected to thermocycling in water baths for 500 times between 5° and 55° with a dwell
time of 30 s in each bath and a transfer time of 30 s to simulate the oral conditions. After thermocycling, the apices of
teeth was sealed with sticky wax. All tooth surfaces were triple coated with finger nail varnish, except a 0.5–1.0 mm
window around the restoration margins. The teeth was immersed in 1% Rhodamine B for 24 h after which they were
rinsed with water and air-dried.

All the samples were longitudinally sectioned in a buccolingual direction using a diamond disc at slow speed in a
micromotor straight handpiece. The microleakage was assessed by viewing all the groups under a stereomicroscope
at a magnification of × 40, and the scoring criteria for the microleakage assessment was followed according to Stainee
and Mark Holtz

1108
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 10(03), 1107-1111

SCORE 0 no dye penetration

SCORE 1 dye penetration along occlusal but less than half way to axial wall depth
SCORE 2 dye penetration along occlusal wall but more than halfway to axial wall depth,
SCORE 3 dye penetration along occlusal wall , up to and
along axial wall

Statistical analysis
The statistical difference among the three experimental groups was evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis test (non-parametric
ANOVA). Also, Mann-Whitney ‘U’ test used for pairwise comparison.

Results:-
Fig 1 and Table 1 presents mean microleakage score of GlumaBond5 ,G Bond and Single Bond Universal adhesives
as 2.5, 2.6 and 1.5 respectively. Kruskal- Wallis test demonstrates as statistically significant difference between three
groups at p=0.03 (p<0.05).

Mann-Whitney U test (Table no 2) for intergroup comparisons shows no statistically significant difference between
Group I vs Group III and Group I vs Group II. However Group II ( G Bond) and Group III( Single Bond Universal )
shows a statistically significant difference (p<0.05).

Discussion:-
To ensurelong-term clinical success, one of theprimary purposes of the enamel and dentin adhesives is to minimize
the marginal gap at the tooth-restoration interface, as ML is one of the essential parameters used to study the
formation of the gap.[6,7]

In our invitro study, newer generations of bonding agents i.e. 8 th generation produced minimum microleakage in
Class V cavity. These findings are in accordance with study done by R. Somani et al .

Gluma Bond5 show score 2 microleakage in 50% of samples (6/12) and score 3 microleakage in 50% samples
(6/12). G bond show score 2 microleakage in 33.3 % samples (4/12) and score 3 microleakage in 66.6% samples
(8/12). Single Bond Universal Adhesive show score 0 microleakage in 33.3% samples (4/12) , score 2 microleakage
41.6% samples (5/12) and score 3 microleakage in 25% samples (3/12). None of the samples show score 1
microleakage.

Statistical significant difference was found in Group II ( G-Bond) and Group III ( Single Bond Universal
Adhesives).These is because of acid esters, when mixed with water, produced a favorable lower pH value of 1.4 as
incomparison to unfavorable higher pH value of 1.8 ofthe 7th generation dentin bonding agents. The lower pH
favors complete removal of smear layer andthe hydroxyapatite is dissolved (demineralized), creating a deeper
retentive pattern on the tooth surface.[8]

The maximum microleakage was found in 7th generation dentin bondingagent(G-Bond), which is HEMA-free, in
comparison with the 5th generation dentin bonding agent (GlumaBond5) and 8th generation dentin bonding agent
(Single Bond Universal Adhesive) could be contributed to the absence of HEMA. As stated by Pashley et al. the
hydrophilicity of HEMA makes it an excellent adhesion promoting monomer and by enhancing wetting of dentin it
significantly improves bond strength, thereby reducing microleakage.

7th and 8th generation don’t have HEMA, the water content was increased in 7 th generation has been increased in an
effort to improve its bonding efficacy and reducemicroleakage; however, bondingefficacy got reduced as in the
absence of HEMA[9]. No significant difference was found between Group I ( GlumaBond 5) and Group III ( Single
Bond Universal Adhesive).

According to Shruti Attavar et al the ML was higher in the nanocomposite , followed by micro-hybrid resin, and the
least is seen in nanohybrid resin,that is why in this study FiltekTM Z250 XT ( 3M ESPE),A Nano Hybrid Universal
Restorative Material was used.

1109
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 10(03), 1107-1111

Rhodamine B dye was the dye chosen. Rhodamine B dye has a significant deeper dye penetration activity. The
advantages are smaller particle size , water solubility, diffusibilityand hard tissue reactivity. Dye penetration was
evaluated using stereomicroscope.

The current research was carried out under in vitro conditions and used to restore natural extracted teeth, and
thermocycling was used as part of the test procedure. For the early evaluation of dental products, in vitro studies are
very relevant.

However, all the possible factors that differentfrom patient to patient are only considered in a clinical trial.
Masticatory forces, food types, oral temperature, moisture variability, and the presence of salivary enzymes and
bacterial by-products are some of the variables. Therefore, to confirm their in vitro findings, further studies are
needed to assess these products’ substantial clinical value through clinical long-term follow-up.

Conclusion:-
Within the limitation of this study, it concludes that the Single Bond Universal Adhesive system showed maximum
resistance to Microleakage compared to the resin bonded with G-Bondand GlumaBond5 bonding agents.

Table no 1:- Comparison of Microleakage between the study groups.

Group Samples Mean(SD) Range Median(Q1- Kruskal- Wallis
Q3) Test
Group I 12 2.5(0.522) 2-3 2.5
GroupII 12 2.6(0.492) 2-3 3 P=0.03
Group III 12 1.5(1.240) 0-3 2

Table no 2:-
Mann-Whitney U-test
Group I versus Group II Group I versus Group III Group II versus Group III
0.4 0.06 0.01

Fig 1:-

1110
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 10(03), 1107-1111

Fig 2:- Scores of microleakage.

Score 0 Score 2 Score 3

Reference:-
1. Vaidyanathan TK, Vaidyanathan J. Recent advances in the theoryand mechanism of adhesive resin bonding to
dentin: A critical review.J Biomed Mater Res B ApplBiomater2009;88:558‑78.
2. Perdigão J, Gomes G, Duarte S Jr., Lopes MM. Enamel bond strengthsof pairs of adhesives from the same
manufacturer. Oper Dent2005;30:492‑9.
3. Talan J, Gupta S, Nikhil V, Jaiswal S. Effect of mechanical alteration ofenamel surface on shear bond strength of
different bonding techniques.J Conserv Dent 2020;23:141.
4. Digole VR, Warhadpande MM, Dua P, Dakshindas D. Comparativeevaluation of clinical performance of two
self‑etch adhesive systemswith total‑etch adhesive system in noncarious cervical lesions: An in vivostudy. J
Conserv Dent 2020;23:190.
5. Jamadar A, Vanti A, Uppin V, Pujar M, Ghivari S, Vagarali H. Comparative
evaluation of shear bond strength of sixth‑and seventh‑generationbonding agents with varying pH–An in vitro
study. J Conserv Dent2020;23:169.
6. Deshmukh S, Nandlal B. Evaluation of the shear bond strength ofnanocomposite on carious and sound deciduous
dentin. Int J ClinPediatr Dent 2012;5:25‑8.
7. Kumar N, Zafar MS, Dahri WM, Khan MA, Khurshid Z, Najeeb S. Effectsof deformation rate variation on biaxial
flexural properties of dental resincomposites. J Taibah Univ Med Sci 2018;13:319‑26
8. Abdalla AI, El Zohairy AA, Abdel Mohsen MM, Feilzer AJ. Bond efficacy
and interface morphology of self‑etching adhesives to ground [Link] Dent 2010;12:19‑25
9. Nikhil V, Singh V, Chaudhry S. Comparative evaluation of bond strengthof three contemporary self‑etch
adhesives: An ex vivo study. ContempClin Dent 2011;2:94‑7.

1111