Scanning Electron Microscopic Insight to the Hybrid Layer in Resin Composite Restored Cervical Lesions

Contributors: 1Head, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Farooqia Dental College, Mysore, Karnataka, India; 2Researcher, Dental Biomaterials Research Chair, Department of Dental Health, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11433, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 3Consultant Orthodontist and Restorative Dentist, Springs Dental Care, New Road Side, Horsforth, Leeds, LS18 4QD, UK; 4Consultant, Department of Periodontics, Al Thager Hospital, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 5Demonstrator, Department of Dental Health, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11433, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Correspondence: Dr. Kumar AJ. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Farooqia Dental College, Mysore 570 021, Karnataka, India. Email: [email protected] How to cite the article: Kumar AJ, Yogesh BG, Divakar DD, Dalati MHN, Felemban B, Alshadidi MY. Scanning electron microscopic insight to the hybrid layer in resin composite restored cervical lesions. J Int Oral Health 2016;8(4):415-421. Abstract: Objective: To study the quality of hybrid layer generated in noncarious cervical sclerotic lesions by two different adhesives and techniques, using scanning electron microscope (SEM). Materials and Methods: A total of 32 pre-molars and molars were grouped randomly into four experimental groups consisting of eight specimens in each group and (six pre-molars and molars) as two control groups, consisting of three specimens in each group. All the experimental groups and control groups were treated with two different dentin bonding systems with two different techniques (Group 1 Sclerotic dentin was treated with Prime and Bond NT, Group 2 Sclerotic dentin was removed with a bur and treated with Prime and Bond NT, Group 3 Sclerotic dentin was treated with Xeno III, Group 4 Sclerotic dentin was removed with a bur and treated with Xeno III, Group 5 Where normal dentin was treated with Prime and Bond NT, and Group 6 Normal dentin was treated with Xeno III). The thickness of the hybrid layer was measured on gingival, axial, and occlusal interfaces using SEM. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA and intergroup comparisons were done using Tukey’s multiple comparison test. Results: The mean hybrid layer thickness measured was highest in Group 3 (0.665 μm) and lowest in Group 1 (0.432 μm). Multiple group comparison showed high significant differences when Group 1 was compared with Group 3, and significant differences were seen when Group 1 compared with Group 2 and Group 3 compared with Group 4. In the control group, the highest thickness of the hybrid layer was found in Group 6 and lowest in Group 5. Conclusion: Before rank ordering a particular dentin substrate or a dentin adhesive system, one must understand that there are several methods of evaluation, and SEM is one of the known methods to compare and correlate bond strength studies. However, more in-vivo research is needed in the field of self-etching primers to establish micromorphological relationship of resin-dentin interface with modified smear layers.