International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 4 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2011 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Comparative Evaluation of the Adhesive Properties of Two Generations of Dentin Bonding Agents by Checking the Microleakage in the Primary Teeth: An in vitro Study

Sajjad Hasim Mithiborwala, Vishwas Chaugule, Autar Munshi, Vishwas Patil

Keywords : Dye penetration, Interexaminer variability, Interfacial morphology, Microleakage, Total-etch system, Self-etch system

Citation Information : Mithiborwala SH, Chaugule V, Munshi A, Patil V. Comparative Evaluation of the Adhesive Properties of Two Generations of Dentin Bonding Agents by Checking the Microleakage in the Primary Teeth: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2011; 4 (3):195-202.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1109

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2014

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2011; The Author(s).


Early childhood caries is now affecting the children in dangerous proportions. There is a widespread loss of the tooth material irrespective of the type of the carious lesion. Restoration of such lesions with a strong permanent bond between the dental tissues and the restorative dental materials would be a highly desirable requisite of any restorative material. Ultramorphological characterizations show that the interfacial morphology and the chemical characterization of the bonding systems appear to be strongly associated with each other and, therefore, observing and understanding the interfacial phenomenon and its quality would be of great importance in the selection of a dental adhesive for its use in pediatric restorative dentistry.

PDF Share
  1. Vargas CM, Crall JJ, Schneider DA. Sociodemographic distribution of pediatric dental caries: NHANES III, 1988-1994. J Am Dent Assoc 1998;129:1229-38.
  2. National Institute of Dental Research. Oral health of the United States children: 1986-1987. Bethesda, Md. National Institutes of Health 1989. NIH publication No. 89-2247.
  3. Rai Balwant, Jain Rajnish, Kharb Simmi, Anand SC. Dental caries and oral hygiene status of 8 to 12-year school children of Rohtak: A brief report. The Internet Journal of Dental Science Volume 5(1), 2007.
  4. Barnes JC, Henson JL. Microleakage. A measure of the performance of direct filling materials. Oper Dent 1984;9:2-9.
  5. Barnes DM, Thompson VP, Blank LW, McDonald NJ. Microleakage of class 5 composite resin restorations: A comparison between in vivo and in vitro. Oper Dent Nov- Dec 1993;18(6):237-45.
  6. Wendt L, Goran K, Birkhed D. Replacements of restorations in the primary and young permanent dentition. Swed Dent J 1998; 22:149-55.
  7. Holland IS, Walls AW, Wallwork MA, Murray JJ. The longevity of amalgam restorations in deciduous molars. Brit Dent J 1986; 161:255-58.
  8. Wong FSL, Day SJ. An investigation of factors influencing the longevity of restorations in primary molars. J Int Assoc Dent Child 1990;20:11-16.
  9. Qvist V, Thylstrup A, Mjör IA. Restorative treatment patterns and longevity of amalgam restorations in Denmark. Acta Odont Scand 1986;44:343-49.
  10. Edward J Swift. Bonding systems for restorative materials: A comprehensive review. Pediatric Dent 1998;20(2):80-84.
  11. Noonan, Horner J. The effect of dentin depth on the permeability and ultra structure of primary molars. Pediatric Dent 1994;16: 29-35.
  12. Kaaden C, Powers J. Bond strength of self-etching primers to enamel and dentin of primary teeth. Pediatric dent 2001;23: 481-86.
  13. J De Munck, et al. One day bonding effectiveness of new self etch adhesives to bur cut enamel and dentin. Operative dentistry 2005;30(1):39-49.
  14. Sidney B Finn. Morphology of the primary teeth. In: Sidney B Finn, Clinical Pedodontics (4th ed), WB Saunders Company, Philadelphia 2000,45-70.
  15. Al-Ehaideb AA, Mohammed H. Microleakage of ‘one bottle’ dentin adhesives. Oper Dent 2001;26:172-75.
  16. Spangberg Larz. Instruments, materials and devices. In Stephen Cohen, Richard C Burns, Pathways of the Pulp (8th ed), Mosby Inc, Elsevier Publication. Missouri 2002;521-72.
  17. Harrison JW, et al. J Endod 1978;4:6.
  18. Clarence, et al. Additional conservative and esthetic treatments. In: Clifford M Sturdevant: The Art and Science of Operative Dentistry (2nd ed). The CV Mosby Company, McGrasw-Hill, INC 2000;312-72.
  19. Rontani RM, Ducatti CH, Garcia-Godoy F, De Goes MF. Effect of etching agent on dentinal adhesive interface in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent Spring 2000;24(3):205-09.
  20. Al-Turki M, Akpata ES. Penetrability of dentinal tubules in adhesive lined cavity walls. Operative Dentistry 2002;27:124-31.
  21. Walshaw R, McComb D. SEM evaluation of resin dentine interface with proprietary bonding agents in human subjects. Journal of Dental Research 1994;73(5):1079-87.
  22. Cassandra J, McCourt J. Bond strength of dentinal adhesives in primary teeth. Quintessence International 1993;24:271-73.
  23. Sundfeld, Valentino, Alexandre. Hybrid layer thickness and resin tag length of a self-etching adhesive bonded to sound dentin. Journal of Dentistry Sep 2005;33(8):675-81.
  24. Stalin A, Varma BR, Jayanth. Comparative evaluation of tensile bond strength, fracture mode and microleakage of fifth and sixth generation adhesive systems in primary dentition. JISPPD Jun 2005;23(2):83-88.
  25. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y. Buonocore memorial lectures. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: Current status and future challenges. Oper Dent May-June 2003;28(3):215-35.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.