Microleakage on class V glass ionomer restorations after cavity preparation with aluminum oxide air abrasion

Abstract

This in vitro study assessed the marginal microleakage on class V cavities prepared with aluminum oxide air abrasion and restored with different glass ionomer cements. The cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 15 sound third molars with an airabrasion device (Kreativ Mach 4.1; New Image) using a 27.5-µm aluminum oxide particle stream, and were assigned to 3 groups of 10 cavities each. The restorative materials were: group I, a conventional glass ionomer cement (Ketac-Fil); groups II and III, resinmodified glass ionomer cements (Vitremer R and Fuji II LC, respectively). After placement of the restorations, the teeth were stored in distilled water at 37 o C for 24 h, polished and then submitted to a thermocycling regimen of 500 cycles, isolated, immersed in 0.2% Rhodamine B solution for 24 h, included and serially sectioned. Microleakage was assessed by viewing the specimens under an optical microscope connected to a color video camera and a computer. The images obtained were digitized and analyzed for microleakage using software that allows for a standard quantitative assessment of dye penetration in millimeters. Statistical analysis was done using the Kruskall-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests. Means of dye penetration (%) were: occlusal -I: 25.76 ± 34.35, II: 20.00 ± 42. 16, III: 28.25 ± 41.67; II: 44.22 ± 49.69, III: 39.27 ± 50.74. No statistically significant differences (p>0.05) were observed among either the glass ionomer cements or the margins. In conclusion, class V cavities restored with either conventional or resinmodified glass ionomer cements after preparation with aluminum oxide air abrasion did not show complete sealing at the enamel and dentin/cementum margins.

Comparative evaluation of microleakage in Class V cavities using various glass ionomer cements: An in vitro study

“…Then all the teeth were subjected to a thermocycling regimen of 500 cycles between 5°C and 55°C, dwell time of 1 min, and 3-second transfer time between the baths. [10] Preparation of samples for microleakage…”

Bond Strength of Aluminum Oxide Surface Treatment on Sandwich Restoration

“…(19,20 ) Within the limits of our investigation , the data showed highest shear strength obtained with aluminum oxide air abrasive surface treatment due to fact that roughening the surface by air abrasion with aluminum oxide increasing surface area for bonding and decreasing the surface tension , creating very fine roughness enhancing mechanical and chemical bonding. (21)(22)(23) When GIC surfaces etching with 37 %phosphoric acid no improvement on shear value obtained for sandwich restorations, because acid etching of GIC surfaces allow a cleaned mildly roughened surface with high surface energy. (24,25) The results is agreed with Zanata etal(1997) (26) there were no significant differences among the shear bond strength of the resin composite to etched and non-etched GIC.…”

Infiltration of Rhodamin B into three materials used as cervical barrier

“…The sealing capacity of these restorative materials used as cervical barrier may be harmed by both the bleaching agent and the type of material used 15 . Different methods are used for evaluating marginal leakage of restorative materials, such a penetrant dyes [16][17] , transport of fluids 15 and microbiological tests 18. Rhodamin B dye has been used in various studies [16][17][19][20] for evaluating marginal leakage of restorative materials, because it has homogeneity and stability when in contact with other materials, and does not undergo discoloration.…”