Comparative evaluation of the microleakage of two modified glass ionomer cements on primary molars. An in vivo study

Abstract

This in vivo study was conducted to compare and evaluate the microleakage of two modified glass ionomer cements on deciduous molars. Thirty children (10-16 years) were selected. In each patient, standardized class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces of two different retained deciduous molars and these cavities were restored with GC Fuji II LC (Improved) and GC Fuji IX GP, respectively. Following a period of four weeks after the restoration, these teeth were extracted and immersed in 2% Basic Fuschin dye solution for 24 hours. The depth of dye penetration was assessed after sectioning the teeth and the microleakage determined. The results were statistically analyzed using Student 't' test. It was concluded that both the materials, GC Fuji II LC (Improved) and GC Fuji IX GP were comparable in performance and can be considered to be materials safe for Pedodontics usage, and decrease bacterial penetration.

A Comparative Evaluation of EQUIA Forte Microleakage Versus Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer

“…This could be resulted from polymerization shrinkage that occurs in light cured resin modified glass ionomer cements. Polymerization shrinkage develops within 5 minutes after curing and continues for the next 24 hours .This shrinkage resulted in contraction stress which can break the adhesive interface and create marginal gaps (7) .…”

Comparison of Shear Bond Strength and Microleakage of Various Bulk-fill Bioactive Dentin substitutes: An in vitro Study

“…The part of sectioned tooth showing highest amount of microleakage was scored. 10 Microleakage was scored using the following criteria 8 Biodentine was mixed with the liquid and put in an amalgamator for 30 seconds. Mixed biodentine was placed in the cavity and excess material was removed before the setting time of 12 minutes.…”

Microleakage of conventional, resin-modified, and nano-ionomer glass ionomer cement as primary teeth filling material

“…This method was also used by some researcher to evaluate the microleakage. 6,7 The result demonstrates that none of the three glass ionomer cements was free from microleakage, but nano-ionomer glass ionomer cement showed the most microleakage with a mean score 2.57, and conventional glass ionomer cement showed the least microleakage with mean score 1.29. But there were no significant differences found between those three glass ionomer materials (p = 0.119).…”

“…This finding is in accordance with previously reported in vitro study of microleakage of glass ionomer restorations. 6 The coefficient thermal expansion of conventional glass ionomer cement is similar to that of adjacent tooth structure, which could be a reason for less microleakage compared with other two glass ionomer cements contains resin that have higher coefficient thermal expansion than tooth structure. 9 this can be the possible explanation for less microleakage in conventional glass ionomer cement compared with resin-modified and nano-ionomer glass ionomer cements.…”