Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 11, 2026
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
A comparison of microleakages of five different recent bonding agents/systems in enamel and dentine
R J Rossouw1, S R Grobler, J Theunis
1Oral and Dental Research Institute, Faculty of Dentistry, University of the Western Cape, Private Bag X1, Tygerberg, 7505, Republic of South Africa.
Unlabelled:
This study compared the microleakages in enamel and dentine of newly developed bonding systems from different manufacturers. Fifteen or more extracted non-carious human premolars were used for each dental material system. The bonding systems were used with their respective composites. Cylindrical cavities were prepared in enamel (scored as a separate entity 0-3) and cementum/dentine (scored 0-4) on the buccal surface at the cemento-enamel junction and restored. The specimens were thermocycled, cut into slices and the depth of dye penetration scored. For enamel, the microleakage values of Clearfil Protect Bond (CPB; median = 1.0) and Xeno III (2.3) did not differ statistically (p > 0.05, Chi-square test), while the microleakage of CPB (1.0) was significantly better than that of GC Unifil Bond (GC; 3.0), Prime & Bond XP (P & B; 3.0) and Adper Prompt L-Pop (APL; 3.0), p < 0.05. At the cementum/dentine side significantly (p < 0.05) more microleakage for CPB (2.0) was found than for GC (0.0), P&B (0.5), APL (0.5), and Xeno III (0.5).
Conclusion:
Enamel was most effectively sealed by CPB and cementum/dentine by GC, P&B, APL and Xeno III. The chemical composition perse did not seem to determine the amount and location of microleakage.
