Gingival Microleakage of Class V Composite Restorations with Fiber Inserts

Ahmed, Walaa Magdy; El-Badrawy, Wafa; Kulkarni, Gajanan; Prakki, Anuradha; El‐Mowafy, Omar

doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1375

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fifteen full-text articles were evaluated, and two articles were excluded due to using the tested material as an endocrown or extended it to the roots. Two more articles were found by manual search and cross references [26,27] producing a number of 15 full-text comparative articles, that entirely met the inclusion criteria [4,[8][9][10][11][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Fiber Reinforcement Type on the Performance of Large Posterior Restorations: A Review of In Vitro Studies

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To reinforce extensively prepared cavities, different types of fiber reinforcement are utilized. Polyethylene and glass fibers are the most commonly used fibers in that purpose; each type has its own advantages over the other type. Therefore, the aim of this study is to review the literature to evaluate and compare the influence of different fiber reinforcement types on the performance of posterior large composite restorations. Two independent authors performed a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar, and a manual search for cross references until July 2021. Authors selected only studies that contain comparisons between glass (continuous or short) and polyethylene (woven) fiber-reinforced composites (FRCs) in posterior cavities of human teeth, and that report the effect of fiber inclusion on fracture resistance, microleakage, and marginal adaptation of restorations. A number of 2711 potentially relevant articles were obtained from the electronic search. After extensive assessment, 2696 articles were ineligible to be included in the review, and only 15 articles met the inclusion criteria. Four out of nine studies, which tested the fracture resistance of FRC restorations, revealed similar performance of the glass and polyethylene fibers. The rest of the studies (n = 5) revealed statistically significant differences between the two types of fiber reinforcement, with the majority showed superior reinforcement of glass fiber. Moreover, the reviewed studies revealed that, using fibers within the composite restorations would reduce the microleakage and improve the marginal adaptation of the restoration regardless of the fiber type. FRCs tend to strengthen the restorations of structurally compromised teeth and improve their performance compared to plain composite restorations.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Fiber Reinforcement Type on the Performance of Large Posterior Restorations: A Review of In Vitro Studies

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These findings are in agreement with the findings reported by Ahmed et al, who found that the type of the composite material used (Filtek ® Z250 vs Filtek LS (3M ESPE)) had no significant effect on gingival microleakage, rather the bonding agent type was more critical and had a significant effect. 12 Furthermore, Rengo et al found no significant differences in the microleakage of class II cavities restored with bulkfill composites (G-aenial ® Universal Flo bulk-fill, G-aenial Flo bulk-fill and Kalore ® bulk-fill (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan)) in comparison to that of the cavities incrementally restored with conventional composites (G-aenial Universal Flo, G-aenial Flo and Kalore (GC Corporation)), using the same adhesive system (G-aenial Bond (GC Corporation)) with all the groups. 26 The statistical analysis did not reveal significant differences in the mean microleakage scores, when the values obtained for each group after 6 months were compared with the values obtained after 24 h, in spite of an obvious increase in the mean score.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1,12 The half with the deepest dye penetration was used to represent the tooth. 1,12 The extent of dye penetration was determined by an examination with a stereomicroscope (Wild M3Z Stereo Microscope; Leica Microsystems (Schweitz) AG, Heerbrugg, Switzerland) at a magnification ×10, according to a 5-point scale: -0: no dye penetration; -1: dye penetration limited to the outer half of the gingival floor; -2: dye penetration extended along the entire gingival floor (i.e., beyond the outer half of the gingival floor); -3: dye penetration extended along the gingival wall and up to half of the axial wall; -4: dye penetration extended along the gingival floor and the entire axial wall. In addition, a digital camera (Canon PowerShot S 120; Canon, Inc., Tokyo, Japan) was used to capture photographic images for each selected section (Fig.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gingival microleakage of class II bulk-fill composite resin restorations

Behery¹,

El‐Mowafy²,

El-Badrawy³

et al. 2018

Dent. Med. Probl.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Bulk-fill composites were developed to simplify composite placement and minimize polymerization shrinkage stresses, which can improve gingival marginal adaptation in deep class II cavities. Objectives. The objective of this study was to compare the gingival microleakage of class II cavities restored with bulk-fill composites to that of incrementally restored ones with a conventional composite at 2 storage periods. Material and methods. Forty freshly extracted intact molars were employed. Two standardized class II slot cavities, 3-millimeter-wide buccolingually, with the gingival floor 0.5 mm below the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) and the axial wall depth of 1.3 mm were prepared in each tooth (80 cavity preparations). The prepared teeth were divided equally into 3 bulk-fill groups (Tetric EvoCeram ® Bulk Fill, X-tra Fil ® and QuiXX ®) and 1 control group (TPH Spectra ® HV). Each group was subdivided into 2 equal subgroups (n = 10) according to the storage period in distilled water (24 h and 6 months). The Adper ® Single Bond Plus adhesive was used with all the restorative materials. The cavities in the experimental groups were restored with 4-millimeter bulk-fill composites in 1 increment, while the cavities in the control group were restored with 2 increments of the thickness of 2 mm. The polymerization light was applied from the occlusal surfaces. The teeth were then immersed in 2% procion red dye solution, sectioned and examined under a stereomicroscope to determine the extent of dye penetration. The data was statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Results. The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed no significant differences in the mean microleakage scores among all the groups after 24-hour and 6-month storage (p = 0.945 and p = 0.928, respectively). The Mann-Whitney U test revealed an increase in the mean microleakage scores in all the groups after 6-month storage; however, the scores were not significantly different from the means obtained after 24 h (p = 0.259 for Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill; p = 0.205 for X-tra Fil; p = 0.166 for QuiXX; p = 0.155 for TPH Spectra HV). Conclusions. Gingival microleakage of bulk-fill composites in class II cavities was not significantly different from that of incrementally restored ones with a conventional composite. The increase in the mean gingival microleakage of the specimens stored for 6 months was not statistically significantly different in comparison to the values obtained after the 24-hour storage period for each composite.

show abstract

“…After marginal gaps were measured, all the restored teeth (n=80) prepared for the microleakage test, then the root apices of the teeth were sealed with sticky wax. The whole surface of each tooth was coated with two layers of a nail polish 1mm away from the restoration margins could eliminate microleakage from areas other than the restoration margins that could lead to false positive results (11). The teeth were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsine dye solution for 24 hours at room temperature.…”

Section: Microleakage Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Composite Preheating and Placement Techniques on Marginal Integrity of Class v Restorations

Moustafa

El-Fattah

Al-Abbassy

2020

Alexandria Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION: Different placement techniques of resin-based composite (RBC) systems have been developed to improve the marginal adaptation and reduce microleakage. These techniques included preheating and vibration of resin composite materials. OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed to investigate the effect of preheating and placement techniques on microleakage and marginal gap formation of class V composite restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of eighty sound extracted human molars were used in this study. Standard class V cavities were prepared on their buccal surfaces (4mm mesiodistally, 3mm occlusocervically, and 3 mm pulpal depth). The teeth were divided into 4 groups (n=20): Group I: restored with Filtek bulk fill flowable composite, Group II: restored with Filtek bulk fill composite after it was heated to 60°C using Calset device, Group III: restored with Filtek bulk fill composite adapted with a vibrating instrument (Compothixo), Group IV: restored with Filtek Z350 XT. Specimens were light cured, thermocycled between (5 ºC and 55 ºC in water) and marginal gaps assessment was measured under a stereomicroscope and measured in micrometers. Then teeth were dyed with 0.5% basic fuchsin dye for 24 hours. The dyed specimens were sectioned in the buccolingual direction and evaluated for microleakage (dye penetration) using a stereomicroscope. RESULTS: For marginal gap assessment, results revealed a significant difference between the tested groups, where flowable bulk-fill showed the lowest statistically significant marginal gaps compared to other groups at the occlusal and gingival margins (p<0.05). For the microleakage test, the groups showed more microleakage at gingival margins compared to occlusal margins, flowable bulk-fill and preheated bulk-fill showed the lower microleakage scores among groups. CONCLUSIONS: None of the placement techniques produced gap-free margins. Flowable bulk-fill composite and preheated composite preserved better marginal integrity and reduced microleakage.

show abstract

Gingival Microleakage of Class V Composite Restorations with Fiber Inserts

Cited by 7 publications

References 22 publications

Effect of Fiber Reinforcement Type on the Performance of Large Posterior Restorations: A Review of In Vitro Studies

Effect of Fiber Reinforcement Type on the Performance of Large Posterior Restorations: A Review of In Vitro Studies

Gingival microleakage of class II bulk-fill composite resin restorations

Effect of Composite Preheating and Placement Techniques on Marginal Integrity of Class v Restorations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About