Microleakage Comparative Evaluation of RMGIC and Alkasite with and without Adhesive System in Class V Cavity: An In Vitro Study

Dennis, Dennis; Pintauli, Sondang; Debora, Shinta

doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3130

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many studies have reported the ability for Alk to inhibit caries at restorations margin [31]. In addition, less microleakage was reported for bonded Alk [32]. In this study, it was confirmed that bonded Alk restoration presents an adequate load stress distribution deeply associated with the bonding condition.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Mechanical Behavior of Alkasite Posterior Restorations in Comparison to Polymeric Materials: A 3D-FEA Study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present investigation evaluated the effect of the combination of different dental filling materials in Class I cavities under occlusal loading using three-dimensional finite elements analysis (FEA). Six computer-generated and restored models of a lower molar were created in the CAD software and compared according to the biomechanical response during chewing load condition. Two adhesively bonded bulk restorative materials [bulk-fill resin composite (BF) or Alkasite (Alk)] were evaluated with or without the presence of a base material below (flowable resin composite or glass ionomer cement). A food bolus was placed on the occlusal surface mimicking the compressive occlusal load (600 N) during the static linear analysis. The maximum principal stress (tensile) was calculated as stress criteria in enamel, dentin and restoration. All models showed high stresses along the enamel/restoration margin with a similar stress trend for models restored with the same upper-layer material. Stress values up to 12.04 MPa (Alk) or up to 11.12 MPa (BF) were recorded at the enamel margins. The use of flexible polymeric or ionic base material in combination with bulk-fill resin composite or Alk did not reduce the stress magnitude in dentine and enamel. Class I cavities adhesively restored with bulk-fill resin composite showed lighter stress concentration as well as Alk. Therefore, adhesively bonded Alk restoration showed a promising mechanical behavior when used with different base materials or as a bulk restoration for posterior Class I cavity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Mechanical Behavior of Alkasite Posterior Restorations in Comparison to Polymeric Materials: A 3D-FEA Study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies have reported that the use of alkasite materials with an adhesive system results in less microleakage in the occlusal and gingival margins than seen when using this material without an adhesive system [49,50]. However, when the use of this material does not require the use of an adhesive system, the gap between the dentine and the restorative material is around 20 μm, which is considered clinically acceptable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of bioactive materials in preventing Streptococcus mutans‐induced caries on enamel and dentine

Contreras

Fernandes

Spinola

et al. 2023

European J Oral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study investigated the ability of bioactive materials used to restore enamel and dentine specimens to prevent caries. Enamel (n = 50) and dentine (n = 50) specimens were obtained from bovine incisors, prepared, and randomly allocated to one of five groups according to the restorative treatment: alkasite without adhesive system; alkasite with adhesive system; high viscosity glass ionomer cement; resin composite; no restoration; negative control group. Specimens were restored, exposed to a thermal cycling aging protocol, sterilized, and exposed to a cariogenic challenge induced by Streptococcus mutans and then submitted to surface and subsurface microhardness tests and polarized light microscopy to verify the caries lesion development in enamel or dentine surrounding the restorative materials. Data were analyzed using one‐way ANOVA. In enamel and dentine, glass ionomer cement, alkasite without and with adhesive system presented a lower percentage surface microhardness loss than resin composite and negative control. Enamel subsurface microhardness presented no statistically significant differences between glass ionomer cement, alkasite without and with adhesive system. Glass ionomer cement also did not present statistically significant differences from resin composite and the negative control. In dentine, glass ionomer cement showed the highest subsurface microhardness values. In conclusion, bioactive restorative materials provide greater protection to enamel and dentine against surface caries development than resin composite.

show abstract

“…The identical procedure as in group 1 was followed when mixing and administering alkasite into the cavity. 17 Nanohybrid composite (Group 3): Tetric-N Bond universal adhesive (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) was placed in one layer and rubbed over the prepared cavity surfaces for 20 seconds using a micro-applicator brush. A gentle air stream was used for 10 seconds to remove extra adhesive.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An in Vitro Comparative Evaluation for Internal and Marginal Integrity and the Degree of Monomer Conversion of Alkasite Restorative Material

Shackori,

Qasim,

Hasan

2024

Pharmacogn J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: To compare and evaluate marginal and internal adaptation and to assess the degree of conversion of alkasite restoration in relation with other restorative materials. Methods: on the buccal surface of 25 maxillary premolars a class V cavities were prepared. The teeth were randomly divided into five groups (n=5) that restored as: Group 1: alkasite without adhesive, Group 2: alkasite with adhesive, Group 3: Nanohybrid composite, Group 4: Glass ionomer cement, and Group 5: Resin modified glass ionomer cement. The teeth underwent 5000 cycles of thermocycling between 5° and 55°. Then, silver nitrate solution was infiltrated and Micro-Computed tomography analysis was performed using (LOTUS inVivo). For evaluating degree of conversion, 15 specimens in the form of a disc were prepared from Alkasite, nanohybrid composite and resin modified glass ionomer (n=5). All samples were analyzed using (FTIR) in an ATR Mode in three intervals (after 20 second. 24 hours and 7 days). The data had been analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis, Dune and Wilcoxon tests at a 0.05 significance level. Result: A significant difference in marginal and internal adaptation were observed among restorations (p < 0.05). Superior marginal and internal adaptation was obtained in this study for alkasite whether with or without bonded over nanohybrid composite. However, RMGIC and GIC show more adaptation values among other tested groups. Also degree of monomer conversion percentage varied among restorations at different intervals. Conclusion: alkasite restorations wither with or without bonding have higher marginal and internal adaptation in comparison with nanohybrid composite but lower than that of GIC and RMGIC. Also alkasite restoration showed higher degree of conversion when compared with nanohybride composite and RMGIC after 20 second and 24 hours of polymerization

show abstract

Microleakage Comparative Evaluation of RMGIC and Alkasite with and without Adhesive System in Class V Cavity: An In Vitro Study

Cited by 8 publications

References 9 publications

Mechanical Behavior of Alkasite Posterior Restorations in Comparison to Polymeric Materials: A 3D-FEA Study

Mechanical Behavior of Alkasite Posterior Restorations in Comparison to Polymeric Materials: A 3D-FEA Study

Efficacy of bioactive materials in preventing Streptococcus mutans‐induced caries on enamel and dentine

An in Vitro Comparative Evaluation for Internal and Marginal Integrity and the Degree of Monomer Conversion of Alkasite Restorative Material

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About