Effect of surface sealants on microleakage of Class II restorations after thermocycling and long-term water storage
Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 31, 2026
Scanning Electron Microscopic Evaluation of Surface Defects of Remover Retreatment File After Single and Multiple Uses
Published on: October 11, 2024
Adriano Fonseca Lima1, Giulliana Panfiglio Soares, Pedro Henrique Vasconcellos
1Department of Restorative Dentistry, Piracicaba School of Dentistry, State University of Campinas, Brazil.
Purpose:
To evaluate interface degradation leading to marginal microleakeage in Class II restorations that had received an application of surface sealant at the tooth/restoration interface or not.
Materials And Methods:
Eighty bovine incisors were used, and the teeth were split obliquely, 10 mm from the amelodentinal proximal junction, and finished with water abrasive papers to obtain a smooth, flat incisal surface. Cavities were made to simulate Class II preparations (8 mm high, 4 mm wide and 1.5 mm deep), and the restorations were performed with a composite resin. Teeth were then randomly allocated into 8 groups according to the surface sealant (none, Fortify, Single Bond 2, or Scothbond MP Plus) and aging process (none or thermocycling and storage for 6 months). Microleakage was then evaluated using a dye penetration method immediately after the restoration or after aging. The samples were triturated and assessed by spectrophotometer.
Results:
Microleakage was statistically similar in all groups when assessed immediately after the restorative procedure. After aging, teeth sealed with Fortify presented better results than the other groups.
Conclusion:
Aging causes interface degradation and increased microleakage. Surface sealant can reduce these effects and decrease microleakage in Class II restorations.
