Microleakage of glass ionomer cement restorations

Context:The success of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique depends on the restorative material; hence, clinical studies with various materials are necessary.Aim:The aim of the present study was to clinically evaluate and compare the nanoionomer and high-viscosity glass ionomer using United States Public Health Services (USPHS) Modified Cvar/Ryge Criteria with ART approach.Materials and Methods:Two primary molars in 50 healthy children aged between 5 and 8 years were selected for the study. The teeth were treated with ART and divided into two groups. The group 1 teeth were restored with nanoionomer (Ketac Nano 100 3M ESPE) and group 2 with high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (HVGIC), (Fuji IX GC). Each restoration was evaluated using the USPHS Modified Cvar/Ryge Criteria at baseline and 6 months’ and 12 months’ time interval.Statistical analysis used:Chi-squared (χ2) test.Results:Nanoionomer was significantly better than HVGIC with respect to color match at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months (P<0.001). Nanoionomers were also significantly better than HVGIC in case of cavosurface marginal discoloration and marginal adaptation (P<0.001) at 6 months and 12 months. There was no significant difference between the two materials with respect to secondary caries at 6 months (P>0.05), but at 12 months, nanoionomer was statistically better than HVGIC (P<0.05). There was no statistical significant difference with respect to anatomical form and postoperative sensitivity (P>0.05).Conclusion:The results indicate that nanoionomer can be a successful alternative restorative material for use with ART technique.

show abstract

“…In case of HVGIC, due to dehydration and moisture contamination, there is loss of material at the margins leading to microgaps. [ 14 ]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical evaluation of a new art material: Nanoparticulated resin-modified glass ionomer cement

Konde

Raj

Jaiswal

2012

J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It was also noted that the conventional GIC showed significantly higher microleakage compared to RMGI. The reported greater solubility in water of the conventional GIC (0.07%) compared to that of RMGI (0.03%), along with its higher moisture sensitivity and lower bond strength to dentin, are reasonable explanations for the significant difference in microleakage scores [ 39 , 40 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Diode Laser for the Treatment of Dentin Hypersensitivity on Microleakage of Cervical Restorations

Ahmed

Shaath

Alakeel

et al. 2021

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) are a common clinical finding often linked with dentin hypersensitivity (DH). Aim. The aim of the study was to evaluate the influence of diode laser for the treatment of DH on microleakage of subsequent NCCL restorations. Materials and Methods. Forty-eight extracted human premolars were collected. All teeth received standardized cervical preparation on both the buccal and palatal surfaces and were randomly divided into three groups ( n = 16 ) according to the restorative material used: nanohybrid composite resin (CR), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), and conventional glass ionomer (GIC). The prepared cavities on the palatal surfaces were treated by diode laser using SIROlaser Blue (Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany) prior to restoration, while preparations on the buccal surfaces were directly restored. After thermocycling, the teeth were immersed in methylene blue dye for microleakage evaluation under 40x magnification at both occlusal and cervical margins. The Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Bonferroni tests was conducted to determine inter- and intragroup differences ( P < 0.05 ). Results. All restorative materials tested showed some degree of microleakage with no statistically significantly different scores with or without the use of laser desensitization prior to restorative treatment. Group CR showed the least microleakage, followed by group RMGI, while group GIC showed the highest. Cervical margins showed greater microleakage than the occlusal margins where the difference was statistically significant in the RMGI group without laser pretreatment ( P = 0.006 ) and in both groups CR ( P = 0.02 ) and RMGI ( P = 0.006 ) with the laser pretreatment. Conclusion. Application of diode laser for the treatment of DH prior to the restoration of teeth with NCCL did not affect the microleakage of all the restorative materials tested. All the materials showed some degree of microleakage, which was higher in gingival margins compared to occlusal margins. The resin composite shows the least microleakage among all the tested materials.

show abstract

“…Pada penelitian evaluasi klinis menunjukkan, perlekatan SIK modifikasi resin terhadap struktur gigi lebih baik daripada resin komposit. 13 Berdasarkan pemikiran tersebut, maka dilakukan penelitian perbandingan lebar celah tepi tumpatan SIK modifikasi resin nano dan SIK modifikasi resin. Hasil penelitian diharapkan dapat memberikan gambaran bahan tumpatan yang memiliki lebar celah tepi lebih kecil dan karakteristik dari bahan tumpatan ini.…”

unclassified

Perbedaan Lebar Celah Tepi Tumpatan Semen Ionomer Kaca Modifikasi Resin Nano Dan Modifikasi Resin

Kumala¹,

Rachmawati²,

Sari³

2017

ODONTO : Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: One over many ways to treat dental caries is by restoration. Glass ionomer cement (GIC) is the restorations material that bonds physically and chemically to tooth structure. GIC has been developed by combining the conventional material with monomer resin, known as resin modified GIC (RMGIC). Presently, with the development of nano technology, RMGIC restoration also available in the form of nano particles, called nanofilled RMGIC (RMGICn). One disadvantage of GIC is the marginal gap which may affects the durability of restoration. Purpose: The purpose of this study to compare the marginal gap width of RMGIC and nanofilled RMGIC. Methods: This study used scanning electron microscope (SEM) to observing and measuring the marginal gap width in two kelompoks of 9 maxillary first premolar teeth. The first kelompok restored with RMGIC, the second kelompok restored with nanofilled RMGIC. Following immersion in artificial saliva and the teeth were thermocycled at a temperature of 5 o C, 37 o C, and 55 o C (250 cycles) 1 minute each. Data analysis was done using independent t-test with 95% confidence interval (α = 0.05). Results: Statistical test showed a significant difference for marginal gap width in both kelompok (p = 0.000). Conclusion: There is marginal gap in RMGIC and RMGICn restoration. RMGIC restoration presented lower marginal gap width than RMGIC.

show abstract

Microleakage of glass ionomer cement restorations

Cited by 5 publications

References 6 publications

Clinical evaluation of a new art material: Nanoparticulated resin-modified glass ionomer cement

Clinical evaluation of a new art material: Nanoparticulated resin-modified glass ionomer cement

Influence of Diode Laser for the Treatment of Dentin Hypersensitivity on Microleakage of Cervical Restorations

Perbedaan Lebar Celah Tepi Tumpatan Semen Ionomer Kaca Modifikasi Resin Nano Dan Modifikasi Resin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About