Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Class V Cavities Restored with Various Restorative Materials Using CLSM - An in Vitro Study
- 1. International Journal of Dental Science and Innovative Research (IJDSIR)
Description
Abstract
Background: Microleakage is a major reason of restoration failure, leading to postoperative sensitivity and secondary caries. Modified glass ionomer cements are routinely used to minimize microleakage and postoperative sensitivity in class V cavities.
Aim: This study aims at the evaluation and comparison of microleakage in Class V cavity restorations done with Conventional, Resin modified (RMGIC), Zirconia reinforced and Ceramic reinforced glass ionomer cements.
Materials and Methods: A total of 56 maxillary premolars were collected and class V cavities had been made on the buccal surface, 1 mm just above the junction of cementum and enamel (CEJ). All cavities received surface pre-treatment in accordance with currently accepted protocol and had been categorized into 4 groups on the basis of material employed for restoration: Group-A (Conventional GIC), Group-B (RMGIC), Group-C (Zirconomer improved) and Group-D (Amalgomer CR). All samples underwent 500 cycles of thermocycling following finishing and polishing of restoration. Samples were cut bucco-lingually which was immersed in 0.5% Rhodamine B dye and microleakage was assessed using Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy (CLSM).
Statistical Analysis: One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s Post Hoc test was used for statistical analysis.
Results: Microleakage in Group B samples was significantly less (p<0.05) than Group C and D. Group A and B have shown no statistically significant difference between them.
Conclusion: All restorative materials tested showed microleakage to an extent. RMGIC demonstrated least microleakage whereas Amalgomer CR showed highest microleakage among four groups.
Files
SANJEEV.pdf
Files
(859.1 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:5d95a910c3a0aa9f923a6621ed5377bc
|
859.1 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Software
References
- 1. Usha HL, Kumari A, Mehta D, Kaiwar A, Jain N. Comparing microleakage and layering methods of silorane-based resin composite in class V cavities using confocal microscopy: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2011; 14:164-8. 2. Hegde MN, Vyapaka P, Shetty S. A comparative evaluation of microleakage of three different newer direct composite resins using a self-etching primer in class V cavities: An: in vitro: study. J Conserv Dent. 2009 Oct 1;12(4):160-3. 3. Radhika M, Sajjan GS, Kumaraswamy BN, Mittal N. Effect of different placement techniques on marginal microleakage of deep class-II cavities restored with two composite resin formulations. J Conserv Dent. 2010 Jan 1;13(1):9-15. 4. Hussein TA, Bakar WW, Ghani ZA, Mohamad D. The assessment of surface roughness and microleakage of eroded tooth-colored dental restorative materials. J Conserv Dent 2014; 17:531-5. 5. Guelmann M, Mjor IA. Materials and techniques for restoration of primary molars by pediatric dentists in Florida. Pediatric dentistry. 2002 Jul 1;24(4):326-331. 6. Salman KM, Naik SB, Kumar NK, Merwade S, Brigit B, Jalan R. Comparative evaluation of microleakage in Class V cavities restored with giomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, zirconomer and nano-ionomer: An in vitro study. J Int Clin Dent Res Organ 2019;11: 20-25. 7. Tiwari S, Kenchappa M, Bhayya D, Gupta S, Saxena S, Satyarth S, et al. Antibacterial activity and fluoride release of glass-ionomer cement, compomer and zirconia reinforced glass-ionomer cement. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10: ZC90–93. 8. Bhattacharya A, Vaidya S, Tomer AK, Raina A. GIC at Its best–A review on ceramic reinforced GIC. International Journal of Applied Dental Sciences. 2017;3(4):405-408. 9. Staninec M, Holt M. Bonding of amalgam to tooth structure: tensile adhesion and microleakage tests. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 1988 Apr 1;59(4):397-402. 10. S.K. Sindhu, T.E Watson. Interfacial characteristics of resin modified glass ionomer cements: a study on fluid permeability using confocal laser microscopy. J Dent Res. 1998; 77(9): 1749-59. 11. Baroudi K, Rodrigues JC. Flowable resin composites: A systematic review and clinical considerations. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9: ZE18 24. 12. Maganur P, Satish V, Prabhakar AR, Namineni S. Effect of soft drinks and fresh fruit juice on surface roughness of commonly used restorative materials. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 2015; 8:1. 13. Bollu IP, Hari A, Thumu J, Velagula LD, Bolla N, Varri S, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage between nano ionomer, giomer and resin modified glass ionomer cement in class V cavities CLSM study. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10: ZC66 70. 14. Kidd EA. Microleakage: a review. Journal of dentistry. 1976 Sep 1;4(5):199-206. 15. Gupta SK, Gupta J, Saraswathi V, Ballal V, Acharya SR. Comparative evaluation of microleakage in Class V cavities using various glass ionomer cements: An in vitro study. J Interdiscip Dentistry 2012; 2:164-9. 16. Reddy KH, Priya BD, Malini DL, Mohan TM, Bollineni S, Gandhodi HC. Deep margin elevation in class II cavities: A comparative evaluation of microleakage and interface integrity using confocal laser microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. J Conserv Dent. 2024 May 1;27(5):529-34. 17. Pontes DG, Guedes-Neto MV, Cabral MF, Cohen-Carneiro F. Microleakage evaluation of class V restorations with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Oral Health Dent Manag. 2014 Sep 1;13(3):642 18. Bouschlicher MR, Vargas MA, Denehy GE. Effect of desiccation on microleakage of five class 5 restorative materials. Operative Dentistry. 1996; 21: 90-95. 19. Brackett WW, Gunnin TD, Johnson WW, Conkin JE. Microleakage of light-cured glass-ionomer restorative materials. Quintessence International. 1995; 26: 583-585. 20. Tamhankar G, Bendgude V, Pawar M, Chavan J. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of Type IX glass ionomer cement and nano-ionomer cement restoration, in cavities prepared by erbium: Yttrium, aluminium, garnet laser and conventional bur method: In vitro study. Int J Pedod Rehabil 2019; 4:71-5. 21. Diwanji A, Dhar V, Arora R, Madhusudan A, Rathore AS. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three restorative glass ionomer cements: An in vitro study. J Nat Sc Biol Med 2014; 5:373-7. 22. Fukuda R, Yoshida Y, Nakayama Y, Okazaki M, Inoue S, Sano H, et al. Bonding [16] efficacy of polyalkenoic acids to hydroxyapatite, enamel and dentin. Biomaterials. 2003; 24(11):1861-67. 23. Yiu CK, Tay FR, King NM, Pashley DH, Sidhu SK, NeoJC, et al. Interaction of glass ionomer cements with moist dentin. J Dent Res. 2004; 83(4):283-89. 24. Brackett WW, Gunnin TD, Gilpatrick RO, Browning WD. Microleakage of class V compomer and light-cured glass ionomer restorations. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 1998 Mar 1;79(3):261-3. 25. Wilder Jr AD, Swift Jr EJ, May Jr KN, Thompson JY, McDougal RA. Effect of finishing technique on the microleakage and surface texture of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. Journal of Dentistry. 2000 Jun 1;28(5):367-73.