Objective: This study evaluated the microleakage and interfacial micromorphology of Class V cervical amalgam restorations lined with OptiBond, AElitebond, or Panavia 21.
Methods: Unlined amalgams served as control. Cavities were treated with each dentin bonding system according to the manufacturers' instructions and restored with Tytin non-gamma 2 spherical amalgam. After one week of storage in tap water at 37 degrees C, the specimens were thermocycled (1000 cycles, 6-60 degrees C, 30s dwell time). Microleakage was assessed by means of basic fuchsin dye penetration and recorded according to an ordinal scale.
Results: None of the systems tested in this study completely eliminated microleakage. Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U test found that on the occlusal wall, Panavia 21 and the control group had the least leakage (P<0.05). No statistically significant differences were found at dentin margins (P>0.05). Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test found that Panavia 21 and the control group had less leakage at the occlusal than at the dentin margins (P<0.05); when AElitebond and OptiBond groups were evaluated, microleakage at the enamel and at the dentin margins was similar for each group. With the adhesive systems, perhaps the hydrophilic bonding agents incorporated the dye during specimen immersion and/or sectioning.
Conclusions: The use of adhesives may not be as worthy as resin cements for sealing and bonding amalgam restorations to enamel and dentin.