An in vitro Comparison of Microleakage in Composite Inlays with Two Different Methods of Surface Treatment

Document Type : Original Article


Department of Operative Group, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.


Background and Objective: In order to establish micromechanical retention, the internal surface of indirect composite restoration must be made before submitted to treatment. The aim of this in vitro investigation was to compare of microleakage in direct composite inlay restoration between two different surface treatments.
Materials and Methods: Using75 extracted non-carious human premolars, following cavity preparation, all samples were restored by composite inlays after removal of inlays. The samples were randomly divided into 3 groups (n=25), according to the following surface treatment methods: sand blasting with 50 mm Al2O3 particles, etching with 9.5 % hydrofluoric acid  and non-treated control groups. All inlays were cemented to the tooth cavities with dual cure cement. The samples were thermocycled (500 cycles at 5-55°C), sectioned and extent of dye penetration at gingival margins was scored be two independent operators. The data were statically analyzed with Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests.
Results: Air abrasion resulted in a significant decrease in microleakage among all groups (P=0.030). Sand blasting led to less microleakage compared to hydrofluoric acid treatment (P=0.0385) and control (P=0.008). No significant difference was observed between hydrofluoric acid and control group.
Conclusion: Sand blasting resulted in a significant reduction in microleakage, in composite inlays.


1-Samimi P, Jafarzadeh M. Effect of temporary cement contains ougenol bond strength of composite to dentin. Isfahan: Isfahan Medical University; 2001.
2-Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E. The effect of postcuring on quantity of remaining double bonds, mechanical properties, and in vitro wear of two resin composites. J Dent 2000;28(6):447-52.
3-Lucena-Martín C, González-López S, Navajas-Rodriguez de Mondelo JM. The effect of various surface treatments and bonding agents on the repaired strength of heat-treated composites. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86(5):481-8.
4-Kupiec KA, Barkmeier WW. Laboratory evaluation of surface treatments for composite repair. Oper Dent 1996;21(2):59-62.
5-Shahdad SA, Kennedy JG. Bond strength of repaired anterior composite resins: an in vitro study. J Dent 1998;26(8):685-94.
6-Bouschlicher MR, Cobb DS, Vargas MA.  Effect of two abrasive systems on resin bonding to laboratory-processed indirect resin composite restorations. J Esthet Dent 1999; 11(4):185-96.
7-Brosh T, Pilo R, Bichacho N, Blutstein R. Effect of combinations of surface treatments and bonding agents on the bond strength of repaired composites. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77(2): 122-6. 
 8-Pamir T, Türkün M. Factors affecting microleakage of a packable resin composite: an in vitro study. Oper Dent 2005;30(3):338-45.
9-Sarac YS, Eser K, Beydemir B, Akbay T. The effects of different metal surface treatments on marginal microleakage in resin-bonded restorations. Turk J Med Sci 1998;28:685-9.
10-Reis Lda S, Chinelatti MA, Corona SA, Palma-Dibb RG, Borsatto MC. Influence of air abrasion preparation on microleakage in glass ionomer cement restorations. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2004;15(11):1213-6.
11-Dall’Oca S, Papacchini F, Goracci C, Cury AH, Suh BI, Taby FR, et al. Effect of oxygen inhibition on composite repair strength over time. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2007; 81(2):493-8.
12-D’Arcangelo C, Vanini L. Effect of three surface treatments on the adhesive properties of indirect composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 2007;9(3):319-26.
13-Rodrigues SA Jr, Ferracane JL, Della Bona A. Influence of surface treatments on the bond strength of repaired resin composite restorative materials. Dent Mater 2009;25(4):442-51.
14-Ozel Bektas O, Eren D, Herguner Siso S, Akin GE. Effect of thermocycling on the bond strength of composite resin to bur and laser treated composite resin. Lasers Med Sci 2012;27(4):723-8.
15-Zarrati S, Mahboub F. Marginal adaptation of indirect composite, glass-ceramic inlays and direct composite: an in vitro evaluation. J Dent (Tehran) 2010;7(2):77-83.
 16-Summit JB, Robbins JW, Schwartz RS, eds. Fundamentals of operative dentistry: a contemporary approach. 3rd ed. Chicago: Quintessence; 2006. p. 572-3.
 1 7-Roberson TM, editor.  Sturdevant's art & science of operative dentistry. 5th ed. St. Louis, Mo. : Mosby Elsevier; 2006. p. 519-520.           
18-Simi B, Suprabha B. Evaluation of microleakage in posterior nanocomposite restorations with adhesive liners. J Conserv Dent 2011;14(2):178-81.
19-Van Dijken JW. Direct resin composite inlays/ onlays: an 11 year follow–up. J Dent 2000;28(5):299-306 .
 20-Daronch M, Rueggeberg FA, De Goes MF. Monomer conversion of pre-heated composite. J Dent Res 2005;84(7):663-7.
21-Lovell LG, Newman SM, Bowman CN. The effects of light intensity, temperature, and comonomer composition on the polymerization behaviour of dimethacrylate dental resins. J Dent Res 1999;78(8):1469-76.
22- Lucena-Martín C, González-López S, Navajas-Rodríguez de Mondelo JM. The effect of various surface treatments and bonding agents on the repaired strength of heat- treated composites. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86(5):481-8.
23-Pontes AP, Oshima HM, Pacheco JF, Martins JL, Shinkai RS. Shear bond strength of direct composite repairs in indirect composite systems. Gen Dent 2005;53(5):343-7.