Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
International Journal of Dentistry
Volume 2010, Article ID 728453, 6 pages
Research Article

Microleakage after Thermocycling of Three Self-Etch Adhesives under Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement Restorations

1Division of Conservative and Adhesive Dentistry, Department of Dentistry, University of Liège, Box 45, 4020 Liège, Belgium
2Department of Biostatistics, University of Liège, Box 45, 4020 Liège, Belgium

Received 17 September 2009; Revised 17 December 2009; Accepted 22 March 2010

Academic Editor: Roland Frankenberger

Copyright © 2010 Sabine O. Geerts et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


This study was designed to evaluate microleakage that appeared on Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement (RMGIC) restorations. Sixty class V cavities ( h × w × l = 2 m m × 2 m m × 3 m m ) were cut on thirty extracted third molars, which were randomly allocated to three experimental groups. All the buccal cavities were pretreated with polyacrylic acid, whereas the lingual cavities were treated with three one-step Self-Etch adhesives, respectively, Xeno III (Dentsply Detrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany), iBond exp (Heraeus Kulzer gmbH & Co. KG, Hanau, Germany), and Adper Prompt-L-Pop (3M ESPE AG, Dental products Seefeld, Germany). All cavities were completely filled with RMGIC, teeth were thermocycled for 800 cycles, and leakage was evaluated. Results were expressed as means ± standard deviations (SDs). Microleakage scores were analysed by means of generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) assuming an ordinal logistic link function. All results were considered to be significant at the 5% critical level ( 𝑃 < . 0 5 ). The results showed that bonding RMGIC to dentin with a Self-Etch adhesive rather than using polyacrylic acid did not influence microleakage scores ( 𝑃 = . 0 9 1 ), except for one tested Self-Etch adhesive, namely, Xeno III ( 𝑃 < . 0 0 0 1 ). Nevertheless, our results did not show any significant difference between the three tested Self-Etch adhesive systems. In conclusion, the pretreatment of dentin with Self-Etch adhesive system, before RMGIC filling, seems to be an alternative to the conventional Dentin Conditioner for the clinicians as suggested by our results (thermocycling) and others (microtensile tests).