Microleakage in combined amalgam/composite resin restorations in MOD cavities

Abstract

Aim: To compare marginal seal at tooth-material and material-material interfaces in the proximal box in combined amalgam/composite resin restorations. Methods: Mesio-occlusal-distal (MOD) cavities were prepared in 35 premolars and permanent molars with carbide bur. The distal proximal box was restored with amalgam (Permite, SDI) until reaching the height of pulpal floor. Dental tissues were etched with 37% acid and a bonding agent (Bond 1-SF, Pentron) was applied and cured. Composite resin (Filtek Z250, 3M-ESPE) was placed in layers in the mesial proximal box and occlusally, and light cured. Marginal adaptation was evaluated at the following interfaces: amalgam-tooth (A), amalgam-composite resin (AC) and composite resin-tooth (C). Microleakage was evaluated by means of methylene blue infiltration after 7-day water storage and thermocycling regimen (1500 cycles). Microleakage was assessed as percentage depth of horizontal dye penetration. Results: ANOVA showed statistically significant difference between A-AC and A-C (p<0.01). No statistically significant difference was found between AC-C interfaces (p>0.05). Mean microleakage values were A (73.529/28.71), AC (34.118/34.6) and C (40.435/ 34.965), according to Tukey's test. Conclusions: Although the bonding mechanism between amalgam and composite has not yet been completely explained, amalgam/composite resin interface exhibited the lowest microleakage scores. Since amalgam/composite resin restorations exhibited lower microleakage scores than composite resin on the cervical surface, combined restorations can be considered as a biological and aesthetic alternative to conventional Class II composite or amalgam restorations.

Effect of composite/amalgam thickness on fracture resistance of maxillary premolar teeth, restored with combined amalgam-composite restorations

“…Some improvements in dentinal marginal sealing of class II composite restorations with amalgam placement in the gingival third of the proximal box have been reported ( 14 ). Despite the absence of any chemical interaction between the two materials, an excellent marginal seal and better performance of the amalgam/composite resin interface compared to composite–tooth or amalgam-tooth interface were reported in the study by Tolidis et al ( 16 ). They considered combined amalgam-composite restoration as an aesthetic and biologic alternative to conventional composite or amalgam restorations ( 16 ).…”

“…Moreover a clinical study showed that combined technique performed excellently after 6.4 years ( 15 ). Less microleakage at the amalgam/cementum and amalgam/composite compared to composite resin/cementum interface was also reported ( 16 ). Combined amalgam- composite restorations compared to amalgam alone increased resistance to fracture in endodontically treated teeth ( 8 ).…”

Effect of Application of the Fiber Network in Different Positions into the Composite Resin Material on Fracture Resistance of the Restorations

“…[4][5][6][7][8]20,22,23 Örneklerin standart hâle getirilmesini mümkün kılmak, yani deneylerde standardizasyonu sağlamak için, kompozit reçine ve fiber ağ uygulamalarının, diş sert dokularının desteği olmaksızın model kalıpları üzerinde kavite ölçülerine uygun olacak şekilde hazırlanması planlanmıştır. 24 Bu sayede, farklı şekillerde ve konfigürasyonlarda yerleştirilmiş fiber ağların, kompozitin basınç kuvvet lerine dayanımına etkilerinin hiçbir ilave parametre olmaksızın, net bir şekilde değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır.…”

Role of TiF4 in Microleakage of Silorane and Methacrylatebased Composite Resins in Class V Cavities

“…The differences in the results of the various in vitro studies may be attributed to the differences in the experimental design regarding the size and design of the cavities, type of materials tested, tooth age, the size and type of the teeth used, thermocycling, type of dental tissue, and composite placement technique and polymerization. 53 Microleakage evaluation was used to assess the sealing efficiency of the resin composites in this study. This method is mentioned as the most common method of evaluation of the sealing ability of a restorative material.…”