Effect of Mechanical Load Cycling on Microleakage of Restorative Glass Ionomers Compared to Flowable Composite Resin in Class V Cavities

Abstract

Objectives:Microleakage is the most important factor responsible for the destruction of restoration margins. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of mechanical load cycling on microleakage of four types of glass ionomer cement (GIC) in comparison with a flowable composite resin.Materials and Methods:In this in-vitro experimental study, 100 Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 50 intact premolars. The prepared cavities were divided into five groups of (A) Z350, (B) Equia Forte, (C) encapsulated Fuji II LC, (D) hand-mixed Fuji II LC, and (E) Ketac Molar. All the samples were thermocycled (×2,000, 5–55°C), and half of the samples in each group were load cycled. All the teeth were then immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsine for 24 hours, sectioned, and observed under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney-U tests. Comparison between the incisal and gingival microleakage was made with Wilcoxon test. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results:Load cycling and type of restorative material had a significant effect on microleakage. Gingival microleakage was significantly higher than occlusal microleakage with Equia Forte, encapsulated Fuji II LC, hand-mixed Fuji II LC, and Ketac Molar in the absence of loading, and with Z350 after loading.Conclusion:The sealing ability of Z350 under load cycling was better than that of Equia Forte, hand-mixed Fuji II LC, and Ketac Molar. The marginal integrity of encapsulated Fuji II LC was not significantly different than that of Z350.

Comparative evaluation of a bioactive restorative material with resin modified glass ionomer for calcium-ion release and shear bond strength to dentin of primary teeth—an in vitro study

“…Various studies have demonstrated their high durability, greater bond strengths and release of fluoride [26][27][28][29] . However, RMGIs are susceptible to microleakage in both primary and permanent teeth 2,19,25,[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] and have shown secondary caries formation, which are the primary reasons for their observed low success rates, especially in primary teeth 42 . Their fluoride release is also lesser than that observed in conventional glass ionomers, which is attributed to their polymerised resin matrix preventing ion-exchange with the external environment 43 .…”

Comparative Evaluation of Marginal Integrity of Three Esthetic Restorative Materials – An In-vitro Study

“…The present study was done in the Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, School of Dental Sciences, Sharda University. In accordance with similar studies,[ 5 6 ] sixty intact premolars, freshly extracted for orthodontic reasons, were used for this study. They were collected and stored in distilled water.…”

Cimento de ionômero de vidro e sua aplicabilidade na Odontologia: Uma revisão narrativa com ênfase em suas propriedades

“…O silicato pode ser incorporado na hidroxiapatita do dente sem afetar adversamente a geometria do cristal, embora não seja claro se isso pode ser feito com a fase mineral dos dentes em condições clínicas (Muniz et al, 2020). O cálcio é um elemento mineral essencial, com muitos usos biológicos (Hasani et al, 2019).…”