Shayegan Amir, Abergel Candice, Descombels Clara, Malikzade Nihad, Van Hamme Ann-Sophie
Pediatric Dentistry Department, Children's Hospital of Queen Fabiola, Free University of Brussels (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.
Int J Dent. 2025 Jul 19;2025:1323100. doi: 10.1155/ijod/1323100. eCollection 2025.
Microleakage, caused by the failure of restorative materials to bond effectively to dental hard tissues, is a major concern in restorative dentistry. Proper treatment of dental tissues before adhesive procedures is a critical step in ensuring successful bonding. The retention of dental resin materials can be significantly improved by pretreating enamel surfaces with specific inorganic acids or chelators. This study aims to evaluate and compare the effects of five different cleanser agents on the microleakage of resin composite and glass ionomer (GI) class V restorative materials applied to enamel, dentin, and cementum. Seventy-two extracted, noncarious third molars had Class V cavities prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces and were divided into six groups: Control, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)/benzalkonium chloride, EDTA + sodium fluoride, chlorhexidine, sodium hypochlorite, and aloe vera. Cleansing agents were applied for 1 min, then rinsed and gently air-dried before restoration. Buccal cavities were restored with resin composite, and lingual cavities were restored with GI cement. The obtained data were collected and statistically analyzed, with two specimens per group examined for bond quality by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The results showed a significant difference in microleakage between the occlusal and cervical margins ( < 0.001). At the occlusal margin, the NaOCl-treated enamel group (enamel GI glass; EGIC) had the least microleakage ( < 0.05), while the EDTA group had the highest values. Based on the results reported in this study, none of the cavity disinfectants in the experimental groups completely prevented microleakage. All specimens showed greater microleakage along the cervical margin than along the occlusal margin. Among the disinfectants tested, sodium hypochlorite had the lowest microleakage levels.
微渗漏是修复牙科领域的一个主要问题，它是由修复材料未能有效粘结到牙齿硬组织上引起的。在粘结操作前对牙齿组织进行适当处理是确保粘结成功的关键步骤。通过用特定的无机酸或螯合剂预处理牙釉质表面，可以显著提高牙科树脂材料的固位力。本研究旨在评估和比较五种不同清洁剂对应用于牙釉质、牙本质和牙骨质的树脂复合材料及玻璃离子（GI）Ⅴ类修复材料微渗漏的影响。72颗拔除的无龋第三磨牙在颊面和舌面制备Ⅴ类洞型，并分为六组：对照组、乙二胺四乙酸（EDTA）/苯扎氯铵组、EDTA + 氟化钠组、洗必泰组、次氯酸钠组和芦荟组。清洁剂应用1分钟，然后冲洗并轻轻吹干后再进行修复。颊面洞用树脂复合材料修复，舌面洞用GI水门汀修复。收集获得的数据并进行统计分析，每组检查两个标本，通过扫描电子显微镜（SEM）检测粘结质量。结果显示，咬合边缘和颈部边缘之间的微渗漏有显著差异（<0.001）。在咬合边缘，次氯酸钠处理的牙釉质组（牙釉质GI玻璃；EGIC）微渗漏最少（<0.05），而EDTA组的值最高。根据本研究报告的结果，实验组中的任何一种窝洞消毒剂都不能完全防止微渗漏。所有标本在颈部边缘的微渗漏都比咬合边缘更大。在所测试的消毒剂中，次氯酸钠的微渗漏水平最低。
