Microleakage of class-v composite restorations with three types of bonding Futurabond NR, Solo Bond M, Futurabond DC

 Microleakage is one of the most common problems in bonding systems. The ingress of micro-organisms and oral fluids through microscopic spaces between restoration and tooth structure is known as microleakage. The aim of this research was to compare the Microleakage of three types of bondings in CLV composite cavities.

 In this experimental study, CLV cavities were prepared in 2*3*2 mm on the buccal surfaces of 45 premolars, with the occlusal margin on enamel and gingival margin on cementum 1 mm below CEJ. The teeth were divided into 3 groups of 15 each. The cavities were treated by Futurabond DC, Solo Bond M, and Futurabond NR (Voco, Germany). Grandio composite (Voco, Germany) was used to restore the cavities. After thermocycling, the samples were immersed in silver nitrate for 24 h and then in developer solution for 6 h. samples evaluated under a stereomicroscope after buccolingual sectioning. Kruskal Wallis test was used for statistical analysis.

 This study revealed that in the gingival area, Solo Bond M had type 1 microleakage in 80% of the cases (dye penetration up to 1/3 of the cavity wall) and type 2 microleakage in 20% (dye penetration up to 2/3 of the cavity wall). Futurabond DC bond had no microleakage in 6.7% of the cases, type 1 in 66.7%, and type 2 in 26.7% of the cases. Futurabond NR bonding had no microleakage in 6.7%, type 1 in 33.3%, and type 3 in 60% of cases (dye penetration in all cavity walls without axial wall involvement ). There was no statistically significant difference in the microleakage at the occlusal margins between 3 groups (P=0/071)

 the amount of microleakage in the occlusal area of the cavity is not significantly different in any of the 3 groups, but The amount of microleakage in the gingival area has a significant difference so that the amount of microleakage of Futurabond NR is significantly higher than the two groups of Futurabond DC and Solo Bond M.