THE COMPARISON OF TWO TYPES COMPOSITE RESIN PACKABLE NANOHYBRID WITH TOTAL ETCH BONDING IN CLASS V RESTORATION MICROLEAKAGE

At dental clinic, there are some obstacles which occasionally may occur. A dentist runs out of the same brand of the composite resin and bonding material during tooth restoration, so they would have to be paired with material of the diffrent brand. Certain things that may occur during tooth restoration is polymerization shrinkage which forms a gap that could reducing edge density. This research is using packable nanohybrid type A composite resin and packable nanohybrid type B resin composite with total etch bonding on Class V restoration with the thin cervical section of enamel. Aim: This research is to explain the differences between two types of packable nanohybrid composite resins with total etch bonding in Class V microleakage. Methods: This research will use an experimental laboratory method with 32 maxillary premolars that have been prepared in Class V, which divided into 2 groups, group A and group B. Methylene blue will be used for the measurements, whereas the microscope will be used for the observation. Furthermore, data analysis would be conducted using the Mann Whitney U Test Method. Results: The research showed that there was a significant difference between group A and group B, which is p <0.05. Conclusion: According to this research, it can be seen that group B showed less leakage compared to group A.

Download Full-text

Comparison of microleakage of an alkasite restorative material, a composite resin and a resin-modified glass ionomer

Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences ◽

10.20396/bjos.v20i00.8663981 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 20 ◽

pp. e213981

Author(s):

Fariba Motevasselian ◽

Hamid Kermanshah ◽

Ebrahim Rasoulkhani ◽

Mutlu Özcan

Keyword(s):

Composite Resin ◽

Composite Resins ◽

Glass Ionomer ◽

Etch And Rinse ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽

Group A ◽

Nanohybrid Composite ◽

Group B ◽

Group D

Aim: To compare the microleakage of Cention N, a subgroup of composite resins with a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) and a composite resin. Methods: Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 46 extracted human molars. The teeth were randomly assigned to four groups. Group A: Tetric N-Bond etch-and-rinse adhesive and Tetric N-Ceram nanohybrid composite resin, group B: Cention N without adhesive, group C: Cention N with adhesive, and group D: Fuji II LC RMGI. The teeth were thermocycled between 5°-55°C (×10,000). The teeth were coated with two layers of nail vanish except for 1 mm around the restoration margins, and immersed in 2% methylene blue (37°C, 24 h) before buccolingual sectioning to evaluate dye penetration under a stereomicroscope (×20). The data were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests (α=0.05). Results: Type of material and restoration margin had significant effects on the microleakage (p<0.05). Dentin margins showed a higher leakage score in all groups. Cention N and RMGI groups showed significant differences at the enamel margin (p=0.025, p=0.011), and for the latter group the scores were higher. No significant difference was found at the dentin margins between the materials except between Cention N with adhesive and RMGI (p=0.031). Conclusion: Microleakage was evident in all three restorative materials. Cention N groups showed similar microleakage scores to the composite resin and displayed lower microleakage scores compared with RMGI.

Download Full-text

The difference between porcelain and composite resin shear bond strength in the administration of 4% and 19.81% silane

Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) ◽

10.20473/j.djmkg.v52.i1.p27-31 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 52 (1) ◽

pp. 27

Author(s):

Ira Widjiastuti ◽

Dwina Rahmawati Junaedi ◽

Ruslan Effendy

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Shear Bond Strength ◽

Composite Resin ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Repair Process ◽

Direct Repair ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Group A ◽

The Difference ◽

Group B

Background: Damage to porcelain restorations such as fractures requires a repair that can be performed either directly or indirectly. Direct repair involves directly performing restoration of fractured porcelain with a composite resin application. This technique has more advantages than indirect repair because it requires no laboratory work and can be completed during a single visit. Silane, on the other hand, has been widely used and is reported to increase porcelain and composite resin attachments during the direct repair process. Purpose: This study aimed to determine the differences in shear bond strength between porcelain and composite resin during the administering of 4% and 19.81% silane. Methods: 27 porcelain samples were divided into three groups, namely: Group A - 4% silane, Group B - 19.81% silane and Group C - no silane, prior to the application of composite resin. Each sample was tested for shear bond strength by means of Autograph and fracture analysis performed through stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope tests. Data analysis was subsequently performed using an ANOVA test. Results: There was a significant difference between the three groups with p=0.000 (p<0.005). The lowest bond strength was found in the group without silane, while the highest was in the group with 4% silane (p<0.005). Conclusion: The use of 4% silane can produce the highest shear bond strength of porcelain and resin composite.

Download Full-text

The effect of glycerin on the surface hardness and roughness of nanofill composite

Conservative Dentistry Journal ◽

10.20473/cdj.v8i2.2018.104-111 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 8 (2) ◽

pp. 104

Author(s):

Diana Zakiyah ◽

Ruslan Effendy ◽

Edhie Arif Prasetyo

Keyword(s):

Surface Roughness ◽

Composite Resin ◽

Surface Hardness ◽

Test Results ◽

Inhibition Layer ◽

Chain Reaction ◽

Oxygen Inhibition ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Group A ◽

Group B

Background: Present research studied the surface hardness and roughness dependence on polymerization. Polymerization of composites occurs through chain reaction that is induced by free radicals. Oxygen in the air decreases the excitability of the photo initiator, causing polymerization interference. Oxygen inhibition layer (OIL) is formed on the surface. OIL can be reduced by curing the composite through by application of glycerin to the surface. Purpose: To determine the effect of glycerin on the surface hardness and roughness of nanofill composite. Material and Methods: 64 specimens of composite (Z350 XT, 3M) were prepared using a disc-shaped acrylic. The groups were divided into group A surface hardness (N=32) and group B surface roughness (N=32). Group A1, the specimen was coated with glycerin and light cured for 20 s and group A2, the specimen was exposed to air and light cured for 20 s. Group B1 was coated with glycerin and light cured for 20 s and Group B2 was exposed to air and light cured for 20 s. The specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 h at 370. Measuring with Vickers and surface roughness tester and. Data were statistically analyzed using Mean-whitney U Test. Results: There were statiscally significant difference between the surface hardness and roughness of nanofill composite coated with glycerin and without glycerin (p<0,05) Conclusion: The surface hardness of nanofill composite resin coated with glycerin is higher than composite without glycerin and the surface roughness of nanofill composite resin coated with glycerin is lower than composite without glycerin

Download Full-text

Comparison of the Ability of Two Brands of CBCT with That of SEM to Detect the Marginal Leakage of Class V Composite Resin Restorations

The Scientific World JOURNAL ◽

10.1155/2021/6688554 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2021 ◽

pp. 1-8

Author(s):

Mitra Karbasi Kheir ◽

Leili Khayam

Keyword(s):

Composite Resin ◽

Nitrate Solution ◽

Silver Nitrate Solution ◽

Composite Resins ◽

Rank Test ◽

Sem Images ◽

Class V ◽

Significant Difference ◽

The Mean ◽

Composite Resin Restorations

Objectives. This study was carried out to compare the ability of two common brands of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), including New Tom and Planmeca, to detect the marginal leakage of class V composite resins. The ability of each of the two brands of CBCT to detect the marginal leakage of class V composite resins was also compared with that of scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Methods. Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surface of sixteen extracted caries-free human premolars. Cavities were conditioned and filled with composite resin. The teeth were immersed in 50% weight/weight aqueous silver nitrate solution for 24 hours. They were then taken out and rinsed with distilled water. Next, they were put in a developing solution. They were first viewed with New Tom and Planmeca CBCT units and were then sectioned and evaluated by an SEM. Results. The results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed no significant difference between the mean marginal leakage scores of New Tom and Planmeca CBCT images ( p value = 0.157) and between those of New Tom CBCT and SEM images ( p value = 0.098). However, there was a significant difference between the mean marginal leakage scores of Planmeca CBCT and SEM images ( p value = 0.023). Conclusion. There were no significant differences between New Tom and Planmeca CBCT units in the detection of marginal leakage of class V composite resins. However, when these CBCT units were compared with the SEM, the New Tom CBCT unit could detect the marginal leakage better than Planmeca.

Download Full-text

COMPOSITE RETENTION CAVITIES;

The Professional Medical Journal ◽

10.29309/tpmj/2019.26.04.3376 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 26 (04) ◽

Author(s):

Sara Jamil ◽

Rizwan Jouhar ◽

Syed Abrar Ali ◽

Muhammad Saqib

Keyword(s):

Randomized Control Trial ◽

Composite Resin ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Class I ◽

Permanent Molar ◽

Molar Teeth ◽

Group A ◽

Randomized Control ◽

Composite Resin Restorations ◽

Group B

Objectives: To compare clinical retention of a low-shrinkage posterior resin composite by using incremental versus bulk placement technique in deep Class I cavities. Setting: Operative Dentistry Department, Altamash Institute of Dental Medicine, Karachi, Pakistan. Period: 6 months from 1st Oct 2017 – 30th March 2018. Study Design: Randomized control trial. Materials and Methods: This study was a randomized control trial study which consists of total of 94 teeth having class I cavity of 3mm minimum depth on occlusal surface. The restorative material evaluated in this study was Filtek Z250 (3M, ESPE) and the cavities were restored according to two different techniques. Patients in Group A were treated with bulk fill technique and patients in Group B were treated with incremental technique. The retention of the composite were clinically evaluated after 6 months (180 days) post-operatively. SPSS version 23 was used to analyze data. Results: The result of 6 months observation revealed retention of 43(91.4%) incremental fill composite and 39(85.4 %) bulk fill composite resin restorations which was statistically insignificant. Conclusion: Outcomes of incremental fill composite resin in terms of retention is equal to bulk fill composite resin with Filtek Z250 (3M, ESPE) in class I restorations of permanent molar teeth.

Download Full-text

Marginal adaptation in proximal cavities restored with composites and other materials

Brazilian Dental Science ◽

10.14295/bds.2017.v20i4.1441 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 20 (4) ◽

pp. 63 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Raphaela Farias Rodrigues ◽

Suellen Scarcelli Senna ◽

Ana Flávia Soares ◽

Rafael Lia Mondelli ◽

Paulo Silveira Francisconi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Composite Resin ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Glass Ionomer Cement ◽

Composite Resins ◽

Marginal Adaptation ◽

Glass Ionomer ◽

Marginal Gap ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Molar Teeth ◽

Composite Flow

Objective: To evaluate the marginal adaptation, in enamel (E) and dentin (D), of composite resin (CR) associated with flowable resin composite (flow), bulk fill flowable base (bulk) and resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) in slot cavities. Material and Methods: The study was conducted after approval (Protocol No. 21148413.4.0000.5417) from Ethics Committee. Forty extracted human molar teeth were randomly assigned in eight experimental groups: E-CR, E-BULK, E-FLOW, E-RMGIC, D-CR, D-BULK, D-FLOW, D-RMGIC. The occlusal surface was planned, two slot cavities with standard sizes (depth: 2.0 mm, height: 2.5 mm, width: 2.0 mm) were created on a machine for making cavities. The teeth were restored and after 24h subjected to 2000 cyclic loading and sectioned for analysis of marginal adaptation by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The micrographs were analyzed with the Image J program to measure the size of marginal gaps. The data were transformed into percentages (%GAPS = LG ÷ LM × 100) and analyzed by 2-way ANOVA followed by the post hoc Tukey test (α=0.05). Results: There was a significant difference between different treatments (p<0.01). The groups E-RMGIC (p=0.001) and D-RMGIC (p=0) had the highest percentage of marginal gap. Others groups showed similar percentage of marginal gap (p>0.05). Conclusions: It was concluded that restorations with flowable composite resin and bulk fill liners exhibit the same behavior, but the RMGIC liner increased marginal gap.Keywords: Composite resins; Dental marginal adaptation; Glass ionomer cements.

Download Full-text

Benefit of Glycerine on Surface Hardness of Hybrid & Nanofill Resin Composite

Conservative Dentistry Journal ◽

10.20473/cdj.v11i1.2021.28-31 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

pp. 28

Author(s):

Ferriza Tri Mardianti ◽

Sukaton Sukaton ◽

Galih Sampoerno

Keyword(s):

Free Radicals ◽

Composite Resin ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Surface Hardness ◽

Composite Resins ◽

Polymerization Process ◽

Tooth Structure ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Light Curing ◽

Composite Resin Restorations

Background: Composite resins restoration is a treatment for tooth structure loss due to pathological conditions. Longevity of composite resins restoration can be affected by surface hardness restoration. Glycerin can increase surface hardness restoration with inhibit bond oxygen and free radicals on polymerization composite resins. Purpose: Analyze the increase surface hardness composite resins restoration after glycerin application before light-curing composite resins. Review(s): Of the six journals included in this literature review, five journals reported significant differences because of the obstacles in the polymerization process of the composite resin when composite contact with light-curing will activate the photoinitiator to produce highly reactive free radicals, free radicals will break the double chain carbon bonds of monomers and form single bonds of free radicals with monomers. Bonding of free radicals with monomers will produce polymeric bonds (degree of conversion) which affects the level of surface hardness of the filling. While one journal noted no significant difference in the surface hardness of composite resin after glycerin application. Conclusion: The use of glycerin before light-curing can increase the surface hardness composite resin restorations.

Download Full-text

Role of TiF4 in Microleakage of Silorane and Methacrylatebased Composite Resins in Class V Cavities

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice ◽

10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1834 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 17 (3) ◽

pp. 240-247

Author(s):

Zahra Jowkar ◽

Fatemeh Koohpeima ◽

Farahnaz Sharafeddin ◽

Samaneh Ahmadzadeh ◽

Mohammad Javad Mokhtari ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Resin Composite ◽

Composite Resins ◽

Class V ◽

Group 4 ◽

The Social ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Group 3 ◽

Group 2 ◽

Group 1

ABSTRACT Aim This study investigated the effect of TiF4 solution pretreatment on microleakage of silorane and nanofilled methacrylatebased composites in class V cavities. Materials and methods Forty-eight intact premolar teeth were randomly allocated to four groups of 12 teeth. Restorative techniques after standard class V tooth preparations were as follows: Group 1, Filtek P90 composite; group 2, Filtek Z350 XT; group 3, TiF4 solution pretreatment and Filtek P90 composite; group 4, TiF4 solution pretreatment and Filtek Z350 XT. After storing the specimens in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours and followed by immersion of the specimens in a 0.5% basic-fuchsin solution for 24 hours, they were sectioned buccolingually to obtain four surfaces for each specimen for analysis of microleakage using a stereomicroscope. Data analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test to compare the four groups and the Mann- Whitney test for paired comparisons with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 17 software. Results At the enamel margins, microleakage score of the Filtek Z350 XT group was lower than those of the Filtek P90 with and without the application of the TiF4 (p = 0.009 and p = 0.031 respectively). At the dentin margins, groups 3 and 4 (TiF4+Filtek P90 and TiF4+Filtek z350 XT respectively) showed significantly lower microleakage than group 1 (Filtek P90). However, there was no significant difference between other groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion At the enamel margins, microleakage score of the silorane-based composite was more than that of the nanofilled composite. No significant differences were observed between the other groups. At the dentin margins, for the silorane-based composite restorations, TiF4 solution pretreatment resulted in significantly lower microleakage. However, the similar result was not observed for Filtek Z350 XT. Also, no significant difference was observed between microleakage scores of Filtek P90 and Filtek Z350 XT with or without TiF4 pretreatment. Clinical significance In spite of better mechanical and physical properties of modern composites than earlier methacrylate-based composites, polymerization shrinkage has been remaining as one of the main shortcomings of them. Different methods, such as using new low shrinkage resin composites and different dentin pretreatments, have been suggested to overcome this problem. This study evaluated the effect of TiF4 as pretreatment on microleakage of class V tooth preparations restored with a nanocomposite and a silorane-based resin composite. How to cite this article Koohpeima F, Sharafeddin F, Jowkar Z, Ahmadzadeh S, Mokhtari MJ, Azarian B. Role of TiF4 in Microleakage of Silorane and Methacrylate-based Composite Resins in Class V Cavities. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(3):240-247.

Download Full-text

SHEAR BOND STRENGTH OF RESTORATIVE PARTICULATE RESIN COMPOSITE WITH A SHORT FIBER-REINFORCED RESIN COMPOSITE SUBSTRUCTURE

International Journal of Applied Pharmaceutics ◽

10.22159/ijap.2017.v9s2.42 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 9 ◽

pp. 155

Author(s):

Ellyza Herda ◽

Nabila . ◽

Bambang Irawan

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Shear Bond Strength ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Testing Machine ◽

Short Fiber ◽

Resin Composites ◽

Fiber Reinforced ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Group A ◽

Group B

Objective: This study aimed to identify the shear bond strength of two different restorative particulate resin composites with a short fiber-reinforced resin composite (SFRC) substructure.Methods: Two restorative particulate resin composites, G-aenial PosteriorTM (Group A, 10 specimens) and Tetric N-Ceramtm (Group B, 10 specimens), were used as an upper layer of everX posteriorTM, an SFRC. A shear bond strength test was performed using a universal testing machine with a load of 100 kgf and a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The data were analyzed statistically using the independent samples t-test.Results: The mean shear bond strength values were found to be18.64±1.5 MPa (Group A) and 22.05±1.8 MPa (Group B). A significant difference in shear bond strength between the two groups was found.Conclusion: The shear bond strength value is higher in the Tetric N-CeramTM restorative particulate resin composite with SFRC as a substructure than the G-aenial PosteriorTM restorative particulate resin composite.

Download Full-text

A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Class V Composite Restorations

International Journal of Dentistry ◽

10.1155/2014/685643 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 2014 ◽

pp. 1-4 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Sujatha Gopal Sooraparaju ◽

Pavan Kumar Kanumuru ◽

Surya Kumari Nujella ◽

Karthik Roy Konda ◽

K. Bala Kasi Reddy ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Composite Resin ◽

Wilcoxon Test ◽

Basic Fuchsin ◽

Class V ◽

Bonding Agents ◽

Dye Penetration ◽

Flowable Composite ◽

Group A ◽

Nanohybrid Composite ◽

Group B

Aim. To compare and evaluate the microleakage in class V lesions restored with composite resin with and without liner and injectable nanohybrid composite resin.Materials and Methodology. 60 class V cavities were prepared in 30 freshly extracted teeth. After etching and application of bonding agents these cavities were divided into three groups: Group A (n=20)—restored with composite resin, Group B (n=20)—flowable composite resin liner + composite resin, and Group C (n=20)—restored with injectable composite resin. After curing all the specimens were subjected to thermocycling and cyclic loading. Specimens were stained with 0.5% basic fuchsin and evaluated for dye penetration.Results. Results are subjected to Kruskal Wallis and Wilcoxon test.Conclusion. Within the limitations of this study, none of the three materials were free from microleakage. All the three materials showed more microleakage at gingival margins compared to occlusal margins. Among all the groups G-ænial Flo showed the least microleakage at the gingival wall.

Download Full-text