A comparative microleakage analysis of ion-releasing self-adherable materials

Introduction
Despite the advancements in restorative materials, there are certain drawbacks, including microleakage resulting from insufficient wall adaptation. An effective seal at the tooth/restoration interface is crucial.

Objectives: The aim of the study was to investigate microleakage of different self-adhesive restorative materials.

Material and methods
Class-V cavities were prepared and divided into seven experimental groups with regards to applied material and pre-treatment procedures (n = 12). Cavities were restored with self-adhesive materials, such as hybrid glass ionomer (HGI) without pre-treatment (PT), HGI with PT, glass carbomer (GCP) without PT, GCP with PT, alkasite without adhesive resin (AR), alkasite with AR, nanohybrid composite resin with AR, and compared in terms of microleakage. Data were analyzed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney U tests, with SPSS.

Results
Significant difference in microleakage was found among enamel and dentin (p < 0.05). Leakage values from enamel were obtained as follows: alkasite with AR = nanohybrid composite resin with AR < alkasite without AR < HGI with PT < HGI without PT = GCP with PT < GCP without PT, while leakage values obtained from dentin included alkasite with AR = nanohybrid composite resin with AR = alkasite without AR = HGI with PT < HGI without PT = GCP with PT < GCP without PT.

Conclusions
Microleakage properties are material-dependent and may vary due to ingredients. Alkasite with AR could be an alternative to nanohybrid composite due to better sealing ability of both enamel and dentin, while alkasite without AR and HGI with PT are the preferred materials for dentin. GCP without PT showed the highest microleakage.