Comparison of the microleakage between two different flowable composite resin restorations with 8th generation bond system in Class II cavity: An in vitro stereomicroscopic study.
Comparison of the microleakage between flowable composite resins with 8th generation bond system.
Introduction Marginal adaptability of composite resins is one of the prime factors for the success of class II cavity restoration. Materials and Methodology: Forty non-carious extracted mandibular molar with fully formed apices were collected and Class II box type cavities were prepared on both mesial and distal surfaces of every tooth using a new straight fissure diamond bur and high-speed airrotor handpiece. According to the type of restorative materials used, teeth were divided into Group I (n=20): Restored with SDR (Smart Dentin Replacement) and Group II (n=20): Restored with Tetric Eva Flow Bulk Fill. After 24 hours of storage in distilled water at 37˚C, the restored specimens were subjected to artificial aging by thermocycling. The teeth were then immersed in a 2% methylene blue dye for 24 hours. All samples were cut longitudinally through the center of the restorations with the help of an isomet diamond saw. The sections were then observed under a stereomicroscope at 25X for scoring the depth of dye penetration at cervical and axial walls toward the pulp. Results: Mean score of Group Ia is 0.4±0.83 and Ib was 0.55±0.88 respectively while the mean score of Group IIa was 0.75±1.118 and in IIb was 0.75±1.019 respectively. Microleakage was found to be highest in Group IIa and minimum in Group Ia. Conclusion: Use of a flowable composite SDR above and below the CEJ in Class II composite resin restorations showed good results.
2. Mishra P, Jaiswal S, Nikhil V, Gupta S, Jha P, Raj S. Evaluation of marginal sealing ability of self-adhesive flowable composite resin in Class II composite restoration: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2018;21(4):363-368.
3. Bogra P, Gupta S, Kumar S et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage in class II cavities restored with Ceram X and Filtek P-90: An in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 2012;3:9-14.
4. Alani AH and Toh CG. Detection of microleakage around Dental Restorations: A Review. Oper Dent 1997;22:173-185.
5. Von Fraunhofter JA and Hammer DW. Microleakage of composite resin restorations. J Prosthet.Dent 1984;51(2):209-213.
6. Boruziniat A, Gharaee S, Sarraf Shirazi A, Majidinia S, Vatanpour M. Evaluation of the efficacy of flowable composite as lining material on microleakage of composite resin restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Quintessence Int. 2016;47(2):93-101.
7. Orbowski M, tarczydbo B. Evaluation of marginal integrity of Four Bulk-Fill Dental Composite Materials: In Vitro Study. Sci World J 2015; 4:1-8.
8. Hammad SM, El-Wassefy N. Effect of nanotechnology in self-etch bonding systems on theshear bond strength of stainless steel orthodontic brackets. Dental Press J Orthod. 2017;22(1):47-56.
9. Gale MS, Darvell BW.Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations.J Dent 1999;27:89-99.
10. Yazici AR, Baseren Mand Dayangac B. The effect of flowable resin composite on Microleakage in class V cavities. Oper Dent 2003;28:42-46.
11. Leevailoj C, Cochran MA,Matis BAet al. Microleakage of Posterior Packable Resin Composites with and Without Flowable Liners. Oper Dent 2001;26:302-307.
12. Olmez A, OztasNand Bodur H. The effect of flowable resin composites on microleakage and internal voids in class II composite restorations. Operative Dentistry 2004;29(6):713-719.
13. Niek JM, Opdam, Bodur Het al. Necessity of bevels for box only Class II composite restorations. J. Prosthet Dent 1998; 80:274-279.
14. Meshram P, Meshram V, Palve D, Patil S, Gade V, Raut A. Comparative evaluation of microleakage around Class V cavities restored with alkasite restorative material with and without bonding agent and flowable composite resin: An in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2019;30:403-7
15. Punathil S, Almalki SA, AlJameel AH, Gowdar IM, Mc VA, Chinnari K. Assessment of Microleakage Using Dye Penetration Method in Primary Teeth Restored with Tooth-colored Materials: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2019;20(7):778-782.
16. Lokhande NA, Padmai AS, Rathore VP, Shingane S, Jayashankar DN, Sharma U, et al. Effectiveness of flowable resin composite in reducing microleakage - an in vitro study. J Int Oral Health 2014;6:111-4.
17. Gonulol N, Ertas E' Yılmaz A, Soner C. Effect of thermal aging on microleakage of current flowable composite resins. J Dent Sci 2015;10:376-82.
18. Sudha K, Mohan TM, Aparna K, Yadav BS, Rani ES, Sowjanya DL. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of conventional crowns and endocrowns using confocal laser scanning electron microscope – An in vitro study. J NTR Univ Health Sci 2020;9:6-11.
19. Somani R, Jaidka S. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of newer generation dentin bonding agents: An in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2016;27:86-90.
20. Mazumdar P, Das A, Das UK. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three different direct restorative materials (silver amalgam, glass ionomer cement, cention N), in Class II restorations using stereomicroscope: An in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res. 2019;30(2):277-281.