Microleakage comparision in class V Cavities using different glass ionomer cements

An in-vitro study

https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6nS6.11320

Authors

  • Baljeet Singh Hora Principal and Professor (Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rama Dental College Hospital and Research Centre, Kanpur, India)
  • Asheeh Sawhny Professor and Head of Department (Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rama Dental College Hospital and Research Centre, Kanpur, India)
  • Virginia Vizo Post Graduate Student (Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rama Dental College Hospital and Research Centre, Kanpur, India)
  • Mukta Bansal Senior Lecturer (Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rama Dental College Hospital and Research Centre, Kanpur, India)
  • Rashmi Singh Post Graduate Student (Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rama Dental College Hospital and Research Centre, Kanpur, India)
  • Debajit Sarkar Post Graduate Student (Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rama Dental College Hospital and Research Centre, Kanpur, India)

Keywords:

conventional GIC, resin modified GIC, nano-filled GIC, class V cavity, microleakage

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the microleakage of Conventional  Glass Ionomer Cement(CGIC),Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC)and Nano-Filled Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC). Materials and Methods: forty five sound extracted human molar teeth were selected. Teeth were randomly divided into three groups of 15 teeth each and restored as follows: Group 1-CGIC; Group 2-RMGIC; and Group 3-Nano-filled RMGIC. Datas were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests. Results: There was no statistically significant differences in dye leakage between the three restorative materials for occlusal margins (P = 0.465).At the gingival margins, Group 3 showed significantly less microleakage than Groups 1 (P = 0.008) and 2 (P = 0.041). The degree of microleakage in the gingival margins of each group was higher than that found in occlusal margins. Conclusions: No material was able to completely eradicate microleakage at enamel, dentin, or cementum margin. Nano-filled RMGIC show significantly less microleakage as compared to other two cements at gingival margins.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abd El Halim S, Zaki D. Comparative evaluation of microleakage among three different glass ionomer types. Oper Dent 2011;36:36-42.

Alani AH, Toh CG. Detection of microleakage around dental restorations: A review. Oper Dent 1997;22:173-85.

Bortoluzzi EA, Broon NJ, Bramante CM, Garcia RB, de Moraes IG, Bemardeineli N. Sealing ability of MTA and radiopaque portland cement with or without calcium chloride for root-end filling. J Endod 2006;32:897-900.

Brackett WW, Gunnin TD, Johnson WW, Conkin JE. Microleakage of light-cured glass-ionomer restorative materials. Quintessence Int 1995;26:583-5.

Corona SA, Borsatto MC, Rocha RA, Palma-Dibb RG. Microleakage on Class V glass ionomer restorations after cavity preparation with aluminum oxide air abrasion. Braz Dent J 2005;16:35-8.

Davidson CL. Resisting the curing contraction with adhesive composites. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55:446-7.

Davis EL, Yu X, Joynt RB, Wieczkowski G Jr, Giordano L. Shear strength and microleakage of light-cured glass ionomers. Am J Dent 1993;6:127-9.

Going RE. Microleakage around dental restorations: A summarizing reviews. J Am Dent Assoc 1972;84:1349-57

Goldman M, Simmonds S, Rush R. The usefulness of dye penetration studies reexamined. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1989;67:327-32.

Hallett KB, Garcia-Godoy F. Microleakage of resin-modified glass ionomer cements restorations: An in vitro study. Dent Mater 1993;9:306-11.

Hawley's Condensed chemical dictionary. ll th ed. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold International, 1987.

Kaplan I, Mincer HH, Harris EF, Cloyd JS. Microleakage of composite resin and glass ionomer cement restorations in retentive and nonretentive cervical cavity preparations. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:616-23.

Kidd EA. Microleakage: A review. J Dent 1976;4:199-206.

Manhart J, García-Godoy F, Hickel R. Direct posterior restorations: Clinical results and new developments. Dent Clin North Am. 2002;46:303-39.

Nayak UA, Sudha P, Vidya M. A comparative evaluation of four adhesive tooth coloured restorative materials. An in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2002;13:49-53.

Phair CB, Fuller JL. Microleakage of composite resin restorations with cementum margins J Prosthet Dent 1985;53:361-4

Puckett AD, Fitchie JG, Bennett B, Hembree JH. Microleakage and thermal properties of hybrid ionomer restoratives. Quintessence Int 1995;26:577-8.

Rahmadeni, A. S. ., Hayat, N. ., Alba, A. D. ., Badri, I. A. ., & Fadhila, F. . (2020). The relationship of family social support with depression levels of elderly in 2019 . International Journal of Health & Medical Sciences, 3(1), 111-116. https://doi.org/10.31295/ijhms.v3n1.188

Sidhu SK, Watson TF. Resin modified glass ionomer materials. A status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent. 1995;8:59-67.

Silveira de Araújo C, Incerti da Silva T, Ogliari FA, Meireles SS, Piva E, Demarco FF. Microleakage of seven adhesive systems in enamel and dentin. J Contemp Dent Prac 2006;7:26-33.

Smith DC. Polyacrylic acid-based cements: Adhesion to enamel and dentin. Oper Dent 1992;(Suppl 5):177-83.

Spångberg LS, Acierno TG, Yongbum Cha B. Influence of entrapped air on the accuracy of leakage studies using dye penetration methods. J Endod 1989;15:548-51.

Spradling PM, Senia ES. The relative sealing ability of paste-type filling materials. J Endod 1982;8:543-9.

Suryasa, I. W., Rodríguez-Gámez, M., & Koldoris, T. (2021). Health and treatment of diabetes mellitus. International Journal of Health Sciences, 5(1), i-v. https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v5n1.2864

Swift EJ Jr, Perdigão J, Heymann HO. Bonding to enamel and dentin: A brief history and state of the art, 1995. Quintessence Int 1995;26:95-110

Tyas MJ. The effect of dentin conditioning with polyacrylic acid on the clinical performance of glass ionomer cement-3, year results. Aust Dent J 1994;39:220-1.

Van Meerbeek B, Inokoshi S, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Morphological aspects of the resin-dentin interdiffusion zone with different dentin adhesive systems. J Dent Res 1992;71:1530-40

Wahab FK, Shaini FJ, Morgano SM. The effect of thermocycling on microleakage of several commercially available composite class V restorations in vitro. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:168-74.

Wilson D, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J 1972;132:133-5

Yap AU, Lim CC, Neo JC. Marginal sealing ability of three cervical restorative systems. Quintessence Int 1995;26:817-20

Published

30-07-2022

How to Cite

Hora, B. S., Sawhny, A., Vizo, V., Bansal, M., Singh, R., & Sarkar, D. (2022). Microleakage comparision in class V Cavities using different glass ionomer cements: An in-vitro study. International Journal of Health Sciences, 6(S6), 7047–7055. https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6nS6.11320

Issue

Section

Peer Review Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)