Evaluation of gingival microleakage of class II resin composite restorations with fiber inserts: An in vitro study

Abstract

Aims/Objectives:To evaluate the effect of glass and polyethylene fiber inserts and flowable composite as a liner on the microleakage of Class II composite restorations with gingival margins on root surfaces.Materials and Methods:Class II slots were prepared on both the proximal sides of thirty freshly extracted mandibular molars and were divided into six groups, according to the type of fiber insert and use of flowable composite (Filtek Z350) as a liner. Filtek P-60 (3M/ESPE) posterior composite was used to restore all cavities. The specimens were thermocycled and stained with 2% Basic Fuchsin dye, and sectioned to evaluate the dye penetration under Stereomicroscope. Statistical analysis was done using Kruskalwallis test and Mann whitney U test.Results and Conclusion:This study showed that, fiber insert groups, with or without flowable liner, had reduced microleakage scores as compared to the control groups. However, statistically no significant difference was found between the groups with fiber inserts. Less microleakage was seen in Group IV (With flowable liner and without Fiber inserts) as compared to Group I (Without flowable liner and Fiber inserts).

Effect of fiber reinforcement on microleakage of class II cavities restored with a novel G‐ænial posterior composite, silorane composite, and nanohybrid composite: an in vitro comparative study

“…2,11 The fibers also have the strengthening effect of a composite margin, increasing resistance to the dimensional change or deformation that occurs during thermal and mechanical loading, thus improving marginal adaptation. 10 This result is in accordance with the study conducted by El-Mowafy et al, Ozel and Soyman, and Basavanna et al 2,11,18 Results contradictory those of the present study have also been reported by Dhingra et al and Belli et al, 1,8 in which no reduction in microleakage is shown. One reason for such contrasting results might be the difference in method of placing the restorations, or difference in type of fibers used.…”

“…The fibers also have the strengthening effect of a composite margin, increasing resistance to the dimensional change or deformation that occurs during thermal and mechanical loading, thus improving marginal adaptation . This result is in accordance with the study conducted by El‐Mowafy et al ., Ozel and Soyman, and Basavanna et al . Results contradictory those of the present study have also been reported by Dhingra et al .…”

Gingival Microleakage of Class V Composite Restorations with Fiber Inserts

“…It has been stated that reinforcing effect of glass fibers was more effective than that of polyethylene fibers due to difficulty in obtaining good adhesion between polyethylene and resin matrix. 19 In the present study, no significant difference was found in microleakage scores between both inserts, which is in accordance to Basavanna et al 17 This is probably due to the preimpregnated, salinized and plasma treated polyethylene system used in this study which may have enhanced bonding with resin.…”

“…In contrast, El-Mowafy and others 5 and Basavanna and others 17 found significant reductions in microleakage when glass or polyethylene fibers were placed on the gingival margin of class II composite restorations. There are different reasons to explain the variability in the outcomes of those studies compared to the present study.…”

Influence of Fiber Inserts, Type of Composite, and Gingival Margin Location on the Microleakage in Class II Resin Composite Restorations

“…Results contradictory to the present study have also been reported by El-Mowafy and others 10 and Basavanna and others. 22 In their studies, they demonstrated significant reduction in dye penetration when glass fibers were used to reinforce a packable composite, P60. This difference could be because of the different type of composite used in their study.…”