A comparative microleakage analysis of ion-releasing self-adherable materials

Recen, Duygu; Yazkan, Başak

doi:10.5114/jos.2021.111617

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefor; by reducing the shrinkage force, which what causes higher adaptation and result in low volumetric shrinkage and minimal microleakage. Similar to this study, a work done by Recen and Yazkan 44 who investigated microleakage of different self-adhesive restorative materials and the concluded that due to the improved ability of enamel and dentin sealing, alkasite with adhesive might be a better substitute for nanohybrid composite. The result of this study disagree with George and Bhandary 45 who compared and evaluated the microleakge of alkasite.…”

Section: Table 5: Degree Of Conversion Mean Value (%)supporting

confidence: 81%

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

Section: Table 5: Degree Of Conversion Mean Value (%)supporting

confidence: 81%

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

show abstract

Is Cention-N comparable to other direct dental restorative materials? A systematic review with network meta-analysis of in vitro studies

Justen,

Scheck,

Münchow

et al. 2024

Dental Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radiopacity and Microleakage Evaluation of Different Intermediate Materials

Yazkan,

Açikgöz

2024

Current Research in Dental Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this study is to compare the radiopacities of different types of materials with indications for application as a base under restorations and the microleakage of the final restorations with these materials applied as bases. Methods: Standart Class I cavities were prepared in 90 caries-free molar teeth. The cavities were randomly divided into 9 groups according to the type of intermediate material to be applied (n=10): 1. High flowable composite, 2. Low flowable composite, 3. Fiber reinforced composite, 4. Giomer, 5. Ormocer, 6. Alkasite, 7. Bioactive composite, 8. High viscosity glass ionomer, 9. Glass carbomer. The base materials in each group were applied to the cavity floor and restoration was completed using a nanohybrid composite resin and an universal adhesive system. To evaluate radiopacity, radiographic images were taken using direct digital system and mean gray values were measured with ImageJ software. To analyse microleakage, specimens were subjected to thermocycling, immersed in 2% methylene blue solution for 24 hours, sectioned buccolingually and leakage values observed on the half-piece surfaces were examined under a stereomicroscope and recorded. Data were analysed using One-way Analysis of Variance, Tukey HSD Test and Pearson Chi-Square with Bonferroni-corrected Z Test (p˂0.05). Results: In terms of radiopacity, while alkasite and low flowable composite showed the highest radiopacity, glass carbomer gave the lowest (p

show abstract

A comparative microleakage analysis of ion-releasing self-adherable materials

Cited by 5 publications

References 14 publications

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

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

Is Cention-N comparable to other direct dental restorative materials? A systematic review with network meta-analysis of in vitro studies

Radiopacity and Microleakage Evaluation of Different Intermediate Materials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About