An in vitro Evaluation of Microleakage of Posterior Teeth Restored with Amalgam, Composite and Zirconomer – A Stereomicroscopic Study

Patel, Mayank U; Punia, Sandhya Kapoor; Bhat, Surekha; Singh, Gautam; Bhargava, Rahul; Goyal, Pravesh; Oza, Swapnil; Raiyani, Chirag M

doi:10.7860/jcdr/2015/13024.6225

Cited by 37 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The current study examined the microleakage of different types of glass ionomer restorations placed in class I cavities in primary teeth and subjected to thermocycling due to mimic intraoral temperature variations compatible with oral cavity. 6,14,28 The number of cycles used in this study (1,000 cycles) is in accordance with the number of cycles mentioned in previous studies. 8,11,29 Glass ionomer cements are adhesive bioactive restorative materials with therapeutic action that were developed during the late 1960s.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

“…5 To overcome the above-mentioned drawback, a highstrength restorative material which has been reinforced with ceramic and zirconia filler known as zirconomer (white amalgam) has been introduced in dentistry. 6 The most recent ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer, amalgomer CR (Advanced Health Care Ltd., Kent, England), is used in children. It has been proven that amalgomer CR exhibited higher shear bond strength than that of miracle mix.…”

Section: Ijocrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 Controlling microleakage has always been an important goal of operative dentistry. 6 The clinical success of this new restorative material depends on a good adhesion with the dentinal surface, which should resist various dislodging forces acting on them; hence, the present study was undertaken to evaluate the microleakage of three restorative cements. 8 Due to lack of studies on recent modified GICs on primary teeth, the present in vitro study was conducted to compare the coronary microleakage of following restorative cements: Conventional GICs, zirconomer, and amalgomer CR.…”

Section: Ijocrmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Zirconomer, Amalgomer CR, and Conventional Glass Ionomer (Type II) as Restorative Cements in Primary Teeth: An in vitro Study

Kathal¹,

Bhayya²,

Gupta³

et al. 2017

IJOCRWEB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scoring criteria: • 0 = No dye penetration • 1 = Dye penetration between the restoration and the tooth into enamel and dentin • 2 = Dye penetration between the restoration and the tooth in the enamel and dentin • 3 = Dye penetration between the restoration and the tooth into pulp chamber Results: The data were analyzed with nonparametric test (Kruskal-Wallis test; p < 0.005). There was no significant difference between the three restorative cements. The results showed that conventional GIC exhibited (type II) least microleakage than that of zirconomer, amalgomer CR, and maximum with zirconomer. Amalgomer CR exhibited more microleakage than conventional GIC. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, none of the material was free from microleakage. Although the new materials have certain advantage of strength, they lack microleakage.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Section: Ijocrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ijocrmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Zirconomer, Amalgomer CR, and Conventional Glass Ionomer (Type II) as Restorative Cements in Primary Teeth: An in vitro Study

Kathal¹,

Bhayya²,

Gupta³

et al. 2017

IJOCRWEB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The polyalkenoic acid and the glass components have been specially processed to impart superior mechanical and handling qualities to this high-strength GI. 25 In the present study, we tested the mechanical properties of GI, Zirconomer ® , and amalgam alloy in order to compare the properties, such as CS and DTS. Both CS and DTS were found to be higher for amalgam and zirconia-reinforced GI.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study of the Mechanical Properties of the Novel Zirconia-reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement

Chalissery

Marwah

Almuhaiza

et al. 2016

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The purpose of this in vitro study is to compare the compressive strength (CS) and diametral tensile strength (DTS) of the zirconia-reinforced restorative material (Zirconomer ® ) with conventional glass ionomers (Fuji 1X) and amalgam. Materials and methods:Specimens (n = 120) were fabricated from silver amalgam, reinforced glass ionomer cement (GIC) (glass ionomer, Fuji 1X GC Corp.), and zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer (Zirconomer, Shofu Inc.) for testing the CS and DTS. The results were analyzed using analysis of variance, followed by a Tukey post hoc test.Results: Both CS and DTS were found to be significantly higher for the zirconia-reinforced GIC and silver amalgam compared with GIC (p < 0.001). Conclusion:A newer class of restorative material like Zirconomer helps to overcome the potential hazard of mercury, but retains the strength and durability of amalgam as well as the sustained high-fluoride release of GICs. Furthermore, long-term studies are required to confirm its use as an alternative to the currently available posterior restorative material.

show abstract

“…Out of the various studies methylene blue has been proved to be useful aid. Methylene blue (2 %) was used in this study because of its low cost, low molecular weight of the dye, and ease of application (33).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microleakage Evaluation of Bulk-Fill Composite in Class Ii Restorations of Primary Molars

Eltoum

Bakry

Talaat

et al. 2019

Alexandria Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION:Bulk-fill composites are promising restorative materials which may minimize placement time yet provide successful, durable esthetic restoration. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate marginal microleakage of nano-hybrid bulk-fill composite, and compare it to incrementally placed conventional nano-hybrid composite when used to restore proximal cavities in primary molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS:The sample consisted of 44 freshly extracted sound primary molars. Standardized proximal cavity preparations were prepared and the sample was divided randomly into 2 equal groups: Group I (n=22): Teeth were restored with nano-hybrid bulk-fill composite, Group II (n=22): Teeth were restored with incrementally placed conventional nano-hybrid composite. All specimens were thermocycled and immersed in 2% methylene blue dye at 37C˚ for 24 hours. Methylene blue penetration was assessed on a 4 point grading scale (0 to 3) using a stereomicroscope to evaluate the microleakage of the restorations. Data were statistically analyzed using Mann-Whitney test and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference has been found in the microleakage scores of group I at occlusal and cervical margin (p=1.000). In group II, no statistically significant difference has been found in the microleakage scores between occlusal and cervical margins (P=0.366). Comparing the microleakage scores of group I and group II, no statistically significant difference has been found (p=0.240). Although no significant difference was detected, bulk-fill composite showed lower microleakage scores than incrementally placed conventional composite. CONCLUSIONS: Bulk-fill composite restoration marginal integrity was comparable to incrementally placed conventional composite in proximal cavities of primary molars.

show abstract

An in vitro Evaluation of Microleakage of Posterior Teeth Restored with Amalgam, Composite and Zirconomer – A Stereomicroscopic Study

Cited by 37 publications

References 8 publications

Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Zirconomer, Amalgomer CR, and Conventional Glass Ionomer (Type II) as Restorative Cements in Primary Teeth: An in vitro Study

Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Zirconomer, Amalgomer CR, and Conventional Glass Ionomer (Type II) as Restorative Cements in Primary Teeth: An in vitro Study

Study of the Mechanical Properties of the Novel Zirconia-reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement

Microleakage Evaluation of Bulk-Fill Composite in Class Ii Restorations of Primary Molars

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About