Marginal sealing ability of silorane and methacrylate resin composites in class II cavities: A scanning electron microscopic study

Abstract

Aim and Objectives:To comparatively evaluate the microleakage and microgap formation along the gingival margin in class II cavities restored with silorane resin composite and methacrylate resin composite with and without flowable resin liner.Materials and Methods:Sixty human mandibular premolars were distributed into three groups, each group containing 20 teeth (n = 20). Mesial (subgroup A) and distal (subgroup B) box cavities were prepared with gingival margin above and below cemento enamel junction (CEJ), respectively, in each tooth and restored as follows — Group I — Silorane resin composite with self-etch primer and bond (Filtek P90, 3M ESPE MN, USA). Group II — Methacrylate resin composite (Filtek P60, 3M ESPE MN, USA) and self-etch adhesive (Adper Easy one, 3M ESPE MN, USA). Group III — Methacrylate resin composite with self-etch adhesive and a flowable resin liner (Filtek Z350 XT, 3M ESPE MN, USA). The teeth were thermocycled and immersed in 50% silver nitrate solution before sectioning. The specimens were observed under scanning electron microscope for dye penetration and microgap formation. The data was subjected to statistical analysis using Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test using SPSS version 18.Results:Subgroup A in all the three groups showed significantly less microleakage and microgap formation compared to subgroup B with P < 0.05.Intergroup comparison of subgroup A did not show statistically significant difference, whereas subgroup B showed statistically significant difference for microleakage between group I and group II (P = 0.003), group III and group II (P = 0.002).Conclusion:Silorane resin composite and methacrylate resin with liner showed significantly less microleakage in class II cavities along the gingival margin placed below CEJ compared to methacrylate resin without liner. All the study groups showed less microleakage and microgap formation along the gingival margin placed above CEJ.

The effect of repeated preheating of dimethacrylate and silorane-based composite resins on marginal gap of class V restorations

“…Another important consideration in the results of this study is a better marginal seal of cavities restored with silorane-based composite resin compared to dimethacrylate-based composite resin, consistent with the results of studies by Bechtold et al, 36 Nanjundasetty et al, 37 Krifka et al 38 and Bin Hasan and AL Saif, 39 who reported a better performance of silorane-based composite resins in terms of marginal adaptation. However, Arslan et al 12 did not report any differences between these two composite resin types, which was attributed to the nano-filled nature of the used dimethacrylate-based composite resin.…”

Comparative evaluation of microleakage in Class II restorations using open vs. closed centripetal build-up techniques with different lining materials

“…Various techniques and materials have been advocated for prevention of marginal gaps in this critical portion such as the use of centripetal build-up technique for incremental additions, compomers, low shrinkage composite[ 4 ] or use of stress breaking liners referred to as sandwich technique. The sandwich technique is a layering of materials to create the optimal combination of desirable properties in a restoration.…”

Comparative evaluation of surface hardness and depth of cure of silorane and methacrylate-based posterior composite resins: An in vitro study

“…The silorane-based composite revealed decreased water sorption, solubility and associated diffusion coefficient compared with conventional methacrylate RBCs. [ 3 ] Nanjundasetty et al .,[ 4 ] have shown superior marginal integrity both below and above the CEJ with siloranes compared to methacrylate-based composites.…”

“…[ 3 ] Dye penetration tests have proved silorane-based composites to show significantly less microleakage at both the resin-enamel and resin-cementum interface. [ 4 ]…”