A Comparative Evaluation of Micro Leakage of Two Different Bulk Fill Composites with Ever X Posterior Composite For Class II Restorations By Dye Extraction Method- An in Vitro Study

Bavaria, Setu R.; Shah, Nimisha; Shah, Ruchirani P.; Makati, Deep J.

doi:10.9790/0853-1603087277

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Composites were introduced in the 1960s and have been available for nearly 50 years. [ 7 ] Although composite resin materials have good physical properties, the main limitations are polymerization shrinkage resulting in marginal microleakage, postoperative sensitivity, and secondary caries. [ 8 ]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of compressive strength, shear bond strength, and microhardness values of glass-ionomer cement Type IX and Cention N

Verma¹,

Mathur²,

Sachdev³

et al. 2020

J Conserv Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: This study aimed to compare the compressive strength, shear bond strength, and microhardness of glass-ionomer cement (GIC) Type IX and Cention N. Materials and Methods: Five samples each of GIC Type IX and Cention N were prepared for testing the shear bond strength, tensile strength, and microhardness. Cylinders of the samples measuring 1 cm diameter and 6 mm height were prepared for compressive strength and shear bond strength. For shear bond strength, these samples were embedded into acrylic blocks of dimensions 2 cm × 2 cm. Testing of shear bond strength and compressive strength was done by mounting the samples in a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The samples for microhardness were 1 cm diameter and 5 mm height. The samples were mounted on Vickers microhardness testing machine to test the microhardness. Results: The values for shear bond strength of Cention N were statistically highly significant ( P < 0.01) as compared to GIC Type IX, whereas the compressive strength and microhardness values of Cention N were statistically significant ( P < 0.5) as compared to GIC Type IX. Conclusion: The results suggest significantly higher values for mechanical properties of Cention N as compared to GIC Type IX.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of compressive strength, shear bond strength, and microhardness values of glass-ionomer cement Type IX and Cention N

Verma¹,

Mathur²,

Sachdev³

et al. 2020

J Conserv Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The quantitative methods to assess microleakage are also available but these are more expensive, time consuming and difficult to employ therefore, qualitative method was chosen. 24 Nonetheless, qualitative approach is well documented and accepted method of evaluating microleakage. 24 Compared to RMGIC based sealants, resin based sealants exhibited low microleakage scores.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…24 Nonetheless, qualitative approach is well documented and accepted method of evaluating microleakage. 24 Compared to RMGIC based sealants, resin based sealants exhibited low microleakage scores. This could be attributed to the fact that flowable resins have a low contact angle at substrate 25 and hence adapt well to enamel at the walls of fissures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ameloplasty is counterproductive in reducing microleakage around Resin Modified Glass Ionomer and Resin based fissure sealants

Khan

Abidi

2020

Pak J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the microleakage around resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) based sealants and flowable resin based sealants placed with or without ameloplasty in extracted human teeth. Methods: This in-vitro experimental study was conducted at the Operative Dentistry Department, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan from June 2017 to December 2018. Sixty extracted human molars and premolars were assigned to four groups (n=15) each, according to the type of fissure sealant (flowable resin based sealant or resin modified glass ionomer based sealant) used and either placed with or without ameloplasty. Specimens were thermocycled and then immersed in 1% methylene blue for 24 hours. Specimens were then sectioned and examined using stereo-microscope (50X) for microleakage that was scored on an ordinal scale. Mann-Whitney U test and Ordinal regression were applied. Level of significance kept at 0.05. Results: There was a statistically significant difference (p-value <0.001) between the two sealant types for the microleakage scores. Sealants placed with ameloplasty demonstrated significantly higher microleakage values (p-value <0.001). Conclusion: Microleakage was found to be more pronounced in RMGIC based sealants compared to the resin based sealants. Ameloplasty resulted in higher leakage around the sealants irrespective of the chemistry of material. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.3.1268 How to cite this:Khan TN, Khan FR, Abidi SYA. Ameloplasty is counterproductive in reducing microleakage around Resin Modified Glass Ionomer and Resin based fissure sealants. Pak J Med Sci. 2020;36(3):---------. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.3.1268 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

“…Although composite resin materials have strong physical qualities, their principal drawbacks are secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, and polymerization shrinkage that results in marginal microleakage. 8 Glass ionomer cement (GIC) has gained popularity in pediatric dentistry since it was first introduced by Wilson and Kent due to its biocompatibility, anticariogenic characteristics from fluoride release, and use in non-traumatic restorative procedures. 9 Furthermore, it chemically adheres to the enamel and dentin, obviating the necessity for a retentive cavity preparation and making the material effective for both minimally invasive and maximum tooth structure preservation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Glass Ionomer Cement, Composite and Compomer in Primary Teeth: An In Vitro Study

Sharma¹,

Kaur²,

Aggarwal³

et al. 2023

SVOADE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Because the main dislodging pressures at the tooth restoration interface have a shearing effect, shear bond strength is crucial for the restorative material clinically. Therefore, greater shear bond strength suggests improved material to tooth bonding. Glass ionomer cement and composite is the most popularly used restorative material. Composite resins have better mechanical properties and esthetics than many other types of cement, but they need bonding agents as they are hydrophobic and hence fail to adhere to the teeth. Compomers are polyacid modified resin composites. Compomer and composite resin have similar physical properties, as they are thought to bond to dentin by micromechanical bonding. As resin composites are used in this, the polymerized acid monomer shows acidity when it comes in contact with the saliva and there is a reaction of fluoride-containing basic glass resulting in the cariostatic effect. Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the shear bond strength of Glass Ionomer Cement (Fuji IX GP), Composite Resin (Filtek Z-250) and Compomer, (Compoglass, Ivoclar). Material and Method: An in-vitro, experimental study was conducted on 30 freshly extracted over-retained deciduous molars. Samples were randomly divided into three groups depending on the material to be used. Flat dentinal surface on tooth was prepared over which restorative materials were placed. The prepared specimen was subjected to shear test and the value obtained was compared. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed to calculate the mean shear bond strength of each group. Result: It was observed from the study that the composite resin had the highest shear bond strength value (17.13 ± 1.54), followed by compomer (11.32 ± 1.05) whereas GIC showed the least shear bond strength (6.56 ± 0.87). Conclusion: It was concluded that composite restorative materials show higher shear bond strength than glass ionomer cement and compomer in primary molars, but shear bond strength of compomer was higher than that of glass ionomer cement.

show abstract

A Comparative Evaluation of Micro Leakage of Two Different Bulk Fill Composites with Ever X Posterior Composite For Class II Restorations By Dye Extraction Method- An in Vitro Study

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

Evaluation of compressive strength, shear bond strength, and microhardness values of glass-ionomer cement Type IX and Cention N

Evaluation of compressive strength, shear bond strength, and microhardness values of glass-ionomer cement Type IX and Cention N

Ameloplasty is counterproductive in reducing microleakage around Resin Modified Glass Ionomer and Resin based fissure sealants

Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Glass Ionomer Cement, Composite and Compomer in Primary Teeth: An In Vitro Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About