Comparative evaluation of microleakage in Class V cavities using various glass ionomer cements: An in vitro study

Gupta, S. K.; Gupta, Jaya; Saraswathi, Vidya; Ballal, Vasudev; Acharya, Shashi Rashmi

doi:10.4103/2229-5194.113245

Cited by 30 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 18 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%

“…4,5,7,8,11,12 Microleakage is defined as the clinically detectable passage of bacteria, molecules, fluids, or ions between a cavity wall and the restorative materials applied to it, and is a major challenge in clinical dentistry. [13][14][15] This may occur because of changes in dimensional temperature and mechanical stress or lack of adaptation of the restorative material, resulting in a gap at the tooth material junction. 16,17 There are various methods to detect the microleakage, which include chemical tracers, the use of dyes, radioactive tracers, scanning electron microscopy, electrochemical method neutron activation analysis, air pressure, and fluid filtration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

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: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…Cervical lesions due to early childhood caries, adult caries, or erosion present a special challenge to any pediatric and restorative dentist, because in such cavities, the restorative material is usually required to adhere to dentin or cementum in the cervical margin of a class V cavity. [ 1 2 ] Resin-based composites are widely used for restoring cervical lesions, as they are esthetically pleasing and bond to the tooth structure. [ 3 ] Restoring a cervical lesion with resin composites has always been a challenge, particularly where no enamel is present for efficient bonding at the gingival margin to counteract polymerization shrinkage, temperature variables, and masticatory forces.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) cements were introduced to overcome the problems of moisture sensitivity and low early mechanical strengths associated with the conventional GIC in restoration treatments. [ 1 18 19 20 ]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbial microleakage assessment of class V cavities restored with different materials and techniques: A laboratory study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The aim of this study was to compare microbial microleakage of class V cavities restored with different materials and techniques using a microbial leakage assessment method.Materials and Methods:One hundred extracted, caries-free, human maxillary premolars were randomly divided into five groups. Group 1: Resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), Group 2: Closed sandwich with flowable composite + nanohybrid composite, Group 3: Nanohybrid composite, Group 4: Closed sandwich with RMGI + nanohybrid composite, and Group 5: Flowable composite + nanohybrid composite that were co-cured together (“snow-plow” technique). A microbial penetration method utilizing Streptococcus mutans as an indicator was tested for leakage assessment. Data were analyzed and the significance level was α =0.05.Results:The log-rank test indicated a statistically significant difference in leakage rates among the five groups (P = 0.008). Mantel–Cox log-rank test indicated statistically significant differences in microleakage rates between Groups 1 and 3 (P = 0.029), between Groups 2 and 5 (P = 0.005), and between Groups 3 and 5 (P = 0.002).Conclusion:With respect to the limitations of an in vitro study, our findings suggest that adding a thin layer of flowable composite or RMGI under nanohybrid composite in class V cavities did not decrease the bacterial leakage rate, whereas use of the “snow-plow” technique caused an increase in the microleakage rate.

show abstract

“…Its fluoride release is greater than composites but less than glass ionomers. Disadvantages of Compomer include that it is technique sensitive, limited fluoride release, expansion of matrix due to water sorption and the decrease of physical properties with time (6).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal Leakage Evaluation of Giomer and Compomer in Primary Teeth (In-Vitro Study)

Heba

Azza²,

Niveen³

et al. 2016

Alexandria Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION: Although many restorative materials are available in the market, microleakage around dental restorative materials presents a major problem in clinical dentistry. Giomer (Beautifill II) represents a new generation of dental materials that combines the properties of glass ionomers and composites. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal leakage in primary molars class II restored with Giomer and compare it to that of Compomer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four extracted sound primary molars (n=24) were selected for micro leakage test. Standardized class II cavities were prepared and the teeth were randomly assigned to two groups (n=12). Group I was restored with the Giomer (Beautiful II) and Group II was restored with Compomer (Dyract). Micro leakage test: Teeth were subjected to the process of thermocycling (5 ± 2°C-55 ± 2°C, dwell time 30 s, 1000×). Teeth surfaces were coated with three layers of nail polish except a 1 mm wide window surrounding the margins of the restorations. The restored teeth were immersed in 2% methylene blue solution, sectioned and examined under stereomicroscope. Data were collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed using Mann-Whitney test and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test (p<0.05). RESULTS: Cervical microleakage scores were higher than occlusal microleakage scores with no significant difference in group I (Giomer) (p=0.915). In group II (Compomer) cervical microleakage scores were significantly higher than occlusal microleakage scores (p=0.033). Group I showed lower microleakage scores than group II and the difference was statistically nonsignificant at p value (0.155). CONCLUSIONS: Although no significant difference was detected, Giomer restorative material showed lower microleakage scores than Compomer. Giomer restorative material could be considered a suitable class II restoration of primary molar in high caries risk children.

show abstract

Comparative evaluation of microleakage in Class V cavities using various glass ionomer cements: An in vitro study

Cited by 30 publications

References 18 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

Microbial microleakage assessment of class V cavities restored with different materials and techniques: A laboratory study

Marginal Leakage Evaluation of Giomer and Compomer in Primary Teeth (In-Vitro Study)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About