scholarly journals Influence of an Intermediary Base on the Microleakage of Simulated Class II Composite Resin Restorations

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 301-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
MCC Giorgi ◽  
NMAP Hernandes ◽  
MM Sugii ◽  
GMB Ambrosano ◽  
GM Marchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Analysis ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Qualitative Evaluation ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Low Viscosity ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations

SUMMARY The aim of this in vitro study was to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the microleakage of Class II cavities restored with a methacrylate-based composite (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE) or silorane-based composite (Filtek LS, 3M ESPE), varying the application of an intermediary base, using a low-viscosity composite resin (Filtek Z350 Flow, 3M ESPE) or resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (Vitrebond, 3M ESPE) and no intermediary base (control groups). Sixty cavities were prepared on the proximal surfaces of bovine teeth and were randomly divided according to the experimental groups (n=10). Following the restorative procedures and thermocycling, the samples were immersed in methylene blue for two hours. The qualitative evaluation was made using a stereomicroscope, whereby two observers analyzed the infiltration level of the dye within the tooth/filling. Microleakage scores among the groups were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Mann-Whitney test (p≤0.05). The samples were then ground and the powder was prepared for quantitative analysis in an absorbance spectrophotometer. The results were statistically analyzed by analysis of variance and the Tukey test (p≤0.05). Results from the quantitative analysis showed that LS presented higher values of microleakage than did Z250. There was a significant difference between both composites concerning the intermediary materials, with the lowest values obtained using RMGIC as an intermediary base. Results from the qualitative analysis showed that there were no statistically significant differences between composites; however, there were significant differences for both composites concerning the intermediary materials, with the lowest values obtained using RMGIC as an intermediary. It is possible to conclude that using RMGIC as an intermediary base provided lower microleakage, indicating better sealing of the tooth-restoration interface.

scholarly journals Polymerization Shrinkage of Different Types of Composite Resins and Microleakage With and Without Liner in Class II Cavities

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 325-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
E Karaman ◽  
G Ozgunaltay
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Imaging Device ◽  
Polymerization Shrinkage ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations

SUMMARY Aim To determine the volumetric polymerization shrinkage of four different types of composite resin and to evaluate microleakage of these materials in class II (MOD) cavities with and without a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) liner, in vitro. Materials and Methods One hundred twenty-eight extracted human upper premolar teeth were used. After the teeth were divided into eight groups (n=16), standardized MOD cavities were prepared. Then the teeth were restored with different resin composites (Filtek Supreme XT, Filtek P 60, Filtek Silorane, Filtek Z 250) with and without a RMGIC liner (Vitrebond). The restorations were finished and polished after 24 hours. Following thermocycling, the teeth were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 hours, then midsagitally sectioned in a mesiodistal plane and examined for microleakage using a stereomicroscope. The volumetric polymerization shrinkage of materials was measured using a video imaging device (Acuvol, Bisco, Inc). Data were statistically analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests. Results All teeth showed microleakage, but placement of RMGIC liner reduced microleakage. No statistically significant differences were found in microleakage between the teeth restored without RMGIC liner (p>0.05). Filtek Silorane showed significantly less volumetric polymerization shrinkage than the methacrylate-based composite resins (p<0.05). Conclusion The use of RMGIC liner with both silorane- and methacrylate-based composite resin restorations resulted in reduced microleakage. The volumetric polymerization shrinkage was least with the silorane-based composite.

MICROLEAKAGE OF CLASS II RESTORATION WITH COMPOSITE INLAY: AN IN VITRO STUDY

2016 ◽  
pp. 28-32
Author(s):  
Xuan Anh Ngoc Ho ◽  
Thien Man Tran
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Indirect Composite ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Composite Inlay ◽  
Group 1

Background: Overcoming the obstacles of Class II restoration, especially the microleakage, is a polemic issue. The present study was performed to evaluate the microleakage of Class II restorations using three different techniques. Aims: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the microleakage of Class II restorations using three different techniques. Materials and methods: The study was carried out in the laboratory with paired comparision between groups. Thirty Class II cavities were prepared on extracted non-carious human permanent molars, randomly divided into 3 groups, which were then restored with 3 different methods. Group 1: indirect composite inlay (Tetric N-Ceram) cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji Plus); Group 2 indirect composite inlay (Tetric N-Ceram) cemented flowable composite (Tetric N-flow); Group 3: direct composite restoration using Tetric N-Ceram. Before immersed to 2% methylene blue solution for 12 hours, all restorations were subjected to thermal cycling (100 cycles 50C – 55 0C). The extent of dye penetration along the gingival wall was assessed using a grade scale from 0 to 3 under 40 times magnification using digital camera Nikon D7000. Results: All types of restorations showed some rate of microleakage. In comparing the three techniques, group 1 demonstrated the significantly higher rate of leakage compared to the others (p<0.05), whereas group 2 and 3 showed no significant difference. Conclusion: Different luting materials have different influences on the microleakage degree along gingival wall of Class II restoration. Key word: composite inlay, class II restoration, microleakage

scholarly journals SEM evaluation of gap at the resin dentin interface in Class II composite resin restoration: an in vitro study

2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-104
Author(s):  
P Mazumdar ◽  
U Kumar Das ◽  
R Kundu
Keyword(s):  
Phosphoric Acid ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Etching Technique ◽  
Flowable Composite ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group 2

Introduction: Composite resins have become one of the most commonly used direct restorative materials for anterior and posterior teeth.Objectives: To observe and analyze the gap at the resin dentin interface in class II cavities restored with light cure composite resin in four experimental groups employing 37% phosphoric acid or self etching monomers and restored with /without light cure flowable composite resin.Methods: 40 sound maxillary first premolars, extracted due to orthodontic reasons was taken, distoproximal cavities were prepared and divided into 4 groups. Teeth of Group 1 was etched by 37% Phosphoric acid and light cure flowable composite resin was used, in group 2 ,two coats of self etching acidic monomer were applied and light cure flowable composite resin was used. Teeth of group 3 was etched with 37% phosphoric acid and restored without light cure flowable composite resin and in group 4, two coats of self etching acidic monomer were applied and restored without using light cure flowable composite resin material. Thermocycling was done after finishing and polishing and viewed under scanning electron microscope to observe and analyze the gap between tooth and the restoration.Result: Gap was observed at dentin-composite resin interface in all 4 groups. Results were evaluated by F-test and Manwhitney U test. No statistically significant difference was found.Conclusion: Use of flowable composite resin liner and the etching technique do not have any influence on the gap.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/hren.v10i2.6571 Health Renaissance 2012; Vol 10 (No.2); 98-104

scholarly journals In vitro quantitative evaluation of marginal microleakage in class II restorations confected with a glass ionomer cement and two composite resins

2001 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 277-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Fernanda Borro BIJELLA ◽  
Maria Francisca Thereza Borro BIJELLA ◽  
Salete Moura Bonifácio da SILVA
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Deionized Water ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Dye Penetration ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Distal Direction ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This study evaluated, in vitro, marginal microleakage in class II restorations confected with the glass ionomer cement Vitremer and with the composite resins Ariston pHc and P-60. The aims of the study were to assess the effect of thermocycling on those materials and to evaluate two methods utilized in the analysis of dye penetration. Sixty premolars divided in three groups were utilized; the teeth had proximal cavities whose cervical walls were located 1 mm below the cementoenamel junction. Half of the test specimens from each group underwent thermocycling; the other half remained in deionized water, at 37ºC. The specimens were immersed, for 24 hours, in a basic 0.5% fuchsin solution at 37ºC. For the analysis of microleakage, the specimens were sectioned in a mesio-distal direction, and the observation was carried out with the software Imagetools. The results were evaluated through the 2-way ANOVA and through the Tukey’s test. All groups presented marginal microleakage. The smallest values were obtained with Vitremer, followed by those obtained with the composite resins P-60 and Ariston pHc. There was no statistically significant difference caused by thermocycling, and the method of maximum infiltration was the best for detecting the extension of microleakage.

Effect of Different Intermediary Bases on Microleakage of a Restorative Material in Class II Box Cavities of Primary Teeth

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 82-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faika Y. Abdelmegid ◽  
Fouad S. Salama ◽  
Waleed M. Al-Mutairi ◽  
Saud K. Al-Mutairi ◽  
Sultan O. Baghazal
Keyword(s):  
Primary Teeth ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Positive Control ◽  
Negative Control ◽  
The Other ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean

Introduction The aim of this in vitro study was to assess and compare the effect of different intermediary bases on microleakage between tooth and a nanocomposite interface in Class II box cavities in primary teeth. Methods Standard Class II box cavities were prepared in 52 primary molars and randomly divided into 9 groups according to the intermediary base used (Multicore Flow, Fuji II LC, SDR, Smart Dentin Replacement, and Biodentine). All specimens were subjected to thermocycling and prepared for microleakage testing and evaluation. Results There was significant difference in the mean ranks of microleakage between the 9 groups, which was observed in the gingival side (p<0.0001) and the occlusal side (p<0.0001). The mean ranks microleakage was significantly higher with experimental SDR, experimental Multicore Flow, and positive control materials when compared with the other 6 groups. The microleakage mean ranks were statistically significantly lower in experimental Fuji II LC, experimental Biodentine, and all negative control groups when compared with the other 3 groups. Conclusions Microleakage is affected by the application of intermediate material. Experimental Biodentine and Fuji II LC showed the lowest microleakage while experimental SDR and experimental Multicore Flow showed the highest microleakage.

A Two-year Clinical Comparison of Three Different Restorative Materials in Class II Cavities

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. E32-E42 ◽  
Author(s):  
H Balkaya ◽  
S Arslan
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
High Viscosity ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Secondary Caries ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity ◽  
Resin Restorations

SUMMARY Objectives: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of Class II restorations of a high-viscosity glass ionomer material, of a bulk-fill composite resin, and of a microhybrid composite resin. Methods and Materials: One hundred nine Class II restorations were performed in 54 patients using three different restorative materials: Charisma Smart Composite (CSC; a conventional composite resin), Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF; a high-viscosity bulk-fill composite), and Equia Forte Fil (EF; a high-viscosity glass ionomer). Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE, Neuss, Germany) was used for both conventional and bulk-fill composite resin restorations. The restorations were evaluated using modified US Public Health Service criteria in terms of retention, color match, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, contact point, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, and surface texture. The data were analyzed using the chi-square, Fisher, and McNemar tests. Results: Eighty-four restorations were evaluated at two-year recalls. There were clinically acceptable changes in composite resin restorations (FBF and CSC). In addition, no statistically significant difference was observed between the clinical performances of these materials in terms of all criteria (p&gt;0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between the EF group and the FBF and CSC groups in all parameters except for marginal discoloration, secondary caries, and postoperative sensitivity (p&lt;0.05). Conclusions: The tested bulk-fill and conventional composite resins showed acceptable clinical performance in Class II cavities. However, if EF is to be used for Class II restoration, its use should be carefully considered.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document