Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Conventional and RMGIC Restorations following Conventional and Chemomechanical Caries Removal: An in vitro Study

Background: Endodontic success depends on complete sealing of the root canal orifice to prevent re-infection and re-Contamination of the treated teeth through microleakage. Intra-orifice barrier material provides a seal against micro-organisms, its by-products thus, preventing microleakage and subsequent endodontic failure. Several studies have been done to evaluate microleakage after placing various materials as IOB, but still there is no standardization for the same. Thus, this systematic review was conducted to evaluate the microleakage associated with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), composite, and glass ionomer cement (GIC) when used as IOB material. Materials and Methods: Protocol was formulated in accordance with PRISMA checklist 2020 and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021226225). Electronic search from databases such as Medline/PubMed, Scopus, EBSCOhost, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane were performed from the year 2000–2020. In vitro and ex vivo studies evaluating coronal microleakage after placing IOB material using methylene blue dye penetration test under a stereomicroscope were included. A total of 5 studies were included in the systematic review. After assessing the risk of bias using customized criteria referred from JBI critical appraisal tool, characteristics of the included studies, reason for exclusion of the studies, and data extraction sheet were prepared. Results: All studies included in this systematic review reported that placement of an IOB material significantly reduces microleakage as compared to control groups. MTA used as an IOB showed less microleakage than composite and GIC. Conclusion: MTA as IOB material demonstrated the least microleakage in vitro studies. However, in this systematic review, only in vitro studies were included. Thus, more studies in the form of randomized control trials are required to give a conclusive and definitive result.

show abstract

“…[ 27 55 ] Some studies, on the other hand, have found no significant difference in microleakage between conventional GIC and RMGIC. [ 56 57 58 ]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of coronal microleakage of intra-orifice barrier materials in endodontically treated teeth: A systematic review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The mode of caries removal may affect the bond quality and adhesion of restorative material to the tooth structure to a considerable extent. In the year 2014 Pavuluri et al (18) stated that various techniques of caries removal result in different surface textures of excavated dentin and thickness of smear layer which can affect the quality of bonding to dentin and marginal seal (19,20). In the year 2011 El Kassas et al (5) demonstrated that caries excavation with carbide bur led to a relatively compact smear layer while the ceramic bur produced a less compact and more porous smear layer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Then the samples were immersed in one percent methylene blue for 24h. Subsequently, samples were rinsed with pumice to remove the superficial dye (18). Degree of dye penetration was assessed under a stereomicroscope (Olympus SZ1145, Optical Co., LTD. Tokyo, Japan) at x20 magnification, the image appears on computer screen (Toup view, version 3.7, 2018).…”

Section: Study Outcome Microleakage Evaluation Through Dye Penetration Scores As Well As Distance Of Stain Penetration In Millimetersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microleakage Evaluation of Composite Restoration Following Caries Removal Using Ceramic Bur in Primary Teeth (An in Vitro Study)

Fathy

El-Tekeya

Bakry

et al. 2021

Alexandria Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION:Conservative caries removal is the corner stone of minimally invasive dentistry. Ceramic bur is a self-limiting technique for caries removal in pediatric dentistry. OBJECTIVES:The aim of the study is to evaluate microleakage of adhesive restorations (in vitro) using Ceramic bur to remove caries versus conventional drilling method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: forty exfoliated carious primary teeth were allocated at random into two groups according to method of caries removal. Group I (n=20) caries removal by Ceramic bur, Group II (n=20) caries removal by conventional tungsten carbide bur, followed by composite restorations of all prepared cavities. Teeth were thermo-cycled for 500 cycles between 5ᵒC and 55ᵒC, dwell time 10 seconds for 500 cycles and immersed into 1% methylene blue dye for 24h. Teeth were sectioned in a bucco-lingual direction longitudinally and then studied using stereomicroscope at x20 magnification for dye penetration assessment. Data were collected and subjected to Mann Whitney U test. RESULTS: No significant difference was noted in median microleakage scores and distance of stain penetration in millimeters between the two groups (Ceramic bur) and (conventional tungsten carbide bur) at a p value (0.097) and (0.289) respectively. CONCLUSION: Microleakage of adhesive restorations is not adversely affected by caries removal using Ceramic bur.

show abstract

“…In many studies on microleakage, the level of leakage was measured with scoring method (Diwanji, Dhar, Arora, Madhusudan, & Rathore, 2014;Pavuluri, Nuvvula, Kamatham, & Nirmala, 2014;Shahidi et al, 2009;Singla, Pandit, Srivastava, Gugnani, & Gupta, 2012;Yilmaz & Misirlio glu, 2013). It was observed that 10-20% of the results differed from the rest of the results when the level of leakage was scored by more than one researcher.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of 1.5 T and 3 T magnetic resonance imaging on microleakage of amalgam restorations

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this article is to compare the effects of 1.5 T and 3 T MRI on microleakage of amalgam restorations. A total of 90 extracted molar teeth were used in this study. Amalgam was used to restore standard Class V preparations (5 × 3 × 2 mm). Following the restoration, the teeth were divided into three groups according to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol (Group I: Control, Group II: 1.5 T MRI, and Group III: 3 T MRI). A total of 6,000 thermal cycles at 5°C–55°C were applied on all samples. Microleakage values were measured in millimeters using the ImageJ program. Microleakage values were higher in the gingival region compared to the occlusal region in all groups and the differences were statistically significant (p < .05). Microleakage values were not statistically different among the groups in the occlusal region (p > .05), while there were statistically significant differences among the groups with respect to microleakage values in the gingival region (p < .01). The highest mean microleakage amount in the gingival region was measured in Group III (1.192 ± 0.941 mm). This was followed by Group II (0.519 ± 0.813 mm) and Group I (0.347 ± 0.726 mm), respectively. Within the limitations of this in vitro study, we observed that higher microleakage values in amalgam restored teeth in which were exposed to MRI procedure. We also found that the teeth exposed to the stronger magnetic field showed higher microleakage amount.

show abstract

Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Conventional and RMGIC Restorations following Conventional and Chemomechanical Caries Removal: An in vitro Study

Cited by 7 publications

References 14 publications

Evaluation of coronal microleakage of intra-orifice barrier materials in endodontically treated teeth: A systematic review

Evaluation of coronal microleakage of intra-orifice barrier materials in endodontically treated teeth: A systematic review

Microleakage Evaluation of Composite Restoration Following Caries Removal Using Ceramic Bur in Primary Teeth (An in Vitro Study)

The effect of 1.5 T and 3 T magnetic resonance imaging on microleakage of amalgam restorations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About