Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation and Microleakage of Three Glass Ionomer-Based Class V Restorations: In Vitro Study

Ebaya, Maha M.; Ali, Ashraf I.; Mahmoud, Salah Hasab

doi:10.1055/s-0039-3401435

Cited by 33 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of the present study regarding lower microleakage at the enamel margins were similar to the findings of a previous study 16 . Bonding of adhesive restorative materials to dental substrate depends on either micromechanical interlocking and hybridization due to the penetration of bonding resin into the microscopic porosities on the surface of enamel and dentin, or chemical interactions with the inorganic content of dental substrate.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Comparison of microleakage of an alkasite restorative material, a composite resin and a resin-modified glass ionomer

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To compare the microleakage of Cention N, a subgroup of composite resins with a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) and a composite resin. Methods: Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 46 extracted human molars. The teeth were randomly assigned to four groups. Group A: Tetric N-Bond etch-and-rinse adhesive and Tetric N-Ceram nanohybrid composite resin, group B: Cention N without adhesive, group C: Cention N with adhesive, and group D: Fuji II LC RMGI. The teeth were thermocycled between 5°-55°C (×10,000). The teeth were coated with two layers of nail vanish except for 1 mm around the restoration margins, and immersed in 2% methylene blue (37°C, 24 h) before buccolingual sectioning to evaluate dye penetration under a stereomicroscope (×20). The data were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests (α=0.05). Results: Type of material and restoration margin had significant effects on the microleakage (p<0.05). Dentin margins showed a higher leakage score in all groups. Cention N and RMGI groups showed significant differences at the enamel margin (p=0.025, p=0.011), and for the latter group the scores were higher. No significant difference was found at the dentin margins between the materials except between Cention N with adhesive and RMGI (p=0.031). Conclusion: Microleakage was evident in all three restorative materials. Cention N groups showed similar microleakage scores to the composite resin and displayed lower microleakage scores compared with RMGI.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Comparison of microleakage of an alkasite restorative material, a composite resin and a resin-modified glass ionomer

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A further aspect deserving to be considered is the duration of experimental studies based on up-to-date knowledge, the annual failure rate of conservative restorations is ranged between 1 and 3%, 31,32 and the secondary caries are the most frequent causes accountable for this. 33,34 This estimate is not in agreement with data reported in trials assessed for this study in which 0 cases of secondary caries are reported in 1-and 2-year follow-up works.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microleakage of Direct Restorations-Comparisonbetween Bulk-Fill and Traditional Composite Resins:Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the bulk-fill composites were produced, there was a progressive diffusion of their use for direct conservative treatment in posterior teeth. Their chemical structure increases the depth of cure and decreases the polymerization contraction; in this manner, bulk-fill composites can be placed in 4 mm single layers and the treatment times are considerably reduced. However, aesthetic and mechanical properties and impact on microleakage of bulk-fill resins are still unclear.This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the risk of microleakage of direct posterior restorations made of bulk-fill versus conventional composite resins.Researches were performed on PubMed and Scopus databases. Eligible in vivo studies, published since 2006, were reviewed. Outcomes of marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, and recurrent caries were considered to conduct the systematic review and meta-analysis. Secondary data were examined to implement additional analysis and assess the risk of bias.Eight randomized clinical trials were analyzed, involving 778 direct restorations. The summary of RCTs led to significant but inconsistent results; the marginal discoloration and recurrent caries were found to be improved respectively by 5.1 and 1.4%, whereas the marginal adaptation was reduced of 6.5%. Secondary analyses revealed that follow-up periods, the adhesive system used and the class of carious lesions evaluated are confounding factors, and they result in a risk of bias across studies.Bulk-fill composites are innovative materials for conservative dentistry and they can be used to reduce treatment steps and duration of operative times. There are insufficient data to explore the relationship between bulk-fill composites and microleakage and further investigations are needed.

show abstract

“…Although the capsule form of all glass ionomers was used in our study, it was not easy to control fluidity of glass ionomer material in the cavity as a base. In some microleakage studies ( 12 , 33 , 34 ), glass ionomer materials were applied to the entire cavity using the bulk technique and from clinical point of view, this could be easier than to place a thin layer at the gingival margin. Besides, the application tips of the capsules were not designed to reach narrow spaces such as gingival margins of slot restorations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Saliva Contamination on Microleakage of Open Sandwich Restorations

Çelik

Bayraktar

Özdemir

2020

Acta Stomatol Croat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the microleakage of conventional glass-ionomer, resin modified glass-ionomer and glass hybrid ionomer Class II open sandwich restorations with or without saliva contamination. Materials and methods Sixty extracted sound human molar teeth were used and 120 class II slot cavities were prepared in mesial and distal surfaces. The gingival margins were located 1 mm below the cementoenamel junction. All specimens were randomly divided in 4 groups (n=15): Group I: High-Viscous Glass Ionomer (Fuji IX GP) Group II: Resin Modified Glass Ionomer (Fuji II LC) Group III: Glass Hybrid Ionomer (Equia-fil Forte), Group IV: Composite Resin (G'aenial Posterior). In open sandwich restoration groups, glass ionomer materials were placed to gingival floor in 1 mm thickness and rest of the cavity was filled with resin composite. After the restorations in mesial surfaces had been performed, distal cavities were restored with the same protocol after saliva contamination. The specimens were thermo-cycled for 10000 cycles at 5 0 C to 55 0 C and immersed in methylene blue dye solution (% 0,5) for 24 hours. Then, they were sectioned vertically through the center of the restorations from mesial to distal surface with a water-cooled diamond saw with 1mm thickness. Subsequently, the dye penetration was evaluated with image analysis software. Data were statistically analyzed (p<0.05). Results There was a statistically significant difference between gingival microleakage scores in no contamination groups, between high-viscous glass ionomer, Fuji IX GP and other materials tested (p<0.05). In saliva contaminated groups, there was no statistically significant difference between gingival microleakage scores (p>0.05). Additionally, there was not a statistically significant difference between the no contamination and saliva contaminated groups regardless of dental materials tested (p>0.05). Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, in open sandwich restorations, saliva contamination did not show an adverse effect on microleakage irrespective of dental materials tested. Glass hybrid ionomers and resin modified glass ionomers showed lower microleakage scores in gingival margins compared to high-viscous glass ionomer material in no contamination groups.

show abstract

Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation and Microleakage of Three Glass Ionomer-Based Class V Restorations: In Vitro Study

Cited by 33 publications

References 22 publications

Comparison of microleakage of an alkasite restorative material, a composite resin and a resin-modified glass ionomer

Comparison of microleakage of an alkasite restorative material, a composite resin and a resin-modified glass ionomer

Microleakage of Direct Restorations-Comparisonbetween Bulk-Fill and Traditional Composite Resins:Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Effect of Saliva Contamination on Microleakage of Open Sandwich Restorations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About