Comparison of microleakage of Scotchbond"! Universal Adhesive with methacrylate resin in Class V restorations by two methods: Swept source optical coherence tomography and dye penetration

One of the most important factors in restoration failure is microleakage at the restoration interface. Furthermore, a new generation of bonding, Scotchbond Universal (multi‑mode adhesive), has been introduced to facilitate the bonding steps. The aim of this study was to compare the microleakage of Class V cavities restored using Scotchbond™ Universal with Scotchbond Multi‑Purpose in two procedures.
Eighteen freshly extracted human molars were used in this study. Thirty‑six standardized Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces. The teeth were divided into three groups: (1) Group A: Scotchbond Universal with “self‑etching” procedure and nanohybrid composite Filtek Z350. (2) Group B: Scotchbond Universal with “total etching” procedure and Filtek Z350. (3) Group C: Scotchbond Multi‑Purpose and Filtek Z350. Microleakage at enamel and dentinal margins was evaluated after thermocycling under 5000 cycles by two methods of microleakage assay: swept source optical coherence tomography (OCT) and dye penetration. Wilcoxon’s signed‑rank test and Kruskal–Wallis test were used to analyze microleakage.
In silver nitrate dye penetration method, group A exhibited the minimum microleakage at dentin margins and group C exhibited the minimum microleakage at enamel margins (P Scotchbond Universal with “self‑etching” procedure at dentin margin exhibited more acceptable performance compared to the Scotchbond Multi‑Purpose with the two methods.