Microleakage of high viscosity glass-ionomer and glass-carbomer with and without coating before and after hydrothermal aging

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the microleakage patterns of GIC and GGC with and without their protective surface coatings on enamel and dentin margins before and after aging. Material and Methods: Two rectangular cavities (height: 2 mm; width: 3 mm; depth: 1.5 mm) were prepared on each tooth at the cemento-enamel junction were prepared on human permanent molars (N=56) and the teeth were randomly assigned to be restored with one of the following: a) high viscosity glass-ionomer cement (GIC) (EQUIA Fil, C Corp., Tokyo, Japan) (n=28), b) glass-carbomer cement (GCC) (Glass Carbomer Products, Leiden, The Netherlands) (n=28). Half of the teeth were further divided into two groups where one group received protective surface coating (SC) (G-Coat Plus, GC Corp) (n=14) and the other group did not (n=14). Half of the teeth were stored for 24 hours (n=7), and the other half was thermocycled (5000 cycles, 5-55°C) (n=7). For microleakage analysis, the teeth were immersed in 5% methylene blue dye for 24 hours, sectioned into two equal halves. Microleakage patterns were evaluated using stereomicroscope and scored on a scale of 0-3 (0: No dye penetration, 1: Dye penetration less than half of the axial wall, 2: Dye penetration more than half the axial wall, 3: Dye penetration spreading along the axial wall). Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis tests at the significance level of 0.05. Results: Compared to 24 h storage, after thermocycling, surface coating on GIC decreased microleakage significantly compared to GCC (p=0.046) but not for GCC. In the thermocycled groups, coated GIC showed significantly less leakage at the enamel margin but no significant difference was found with both GIC and GCC in the dentin margins. Conclusion: The application of surface coating significantly reduced the microleakage scores of GIC but not GCC, within the enamel margins only.KeywordsGlass-carbomer; Glass-ionomer; Microleakage.

A comparative microleakage analysis of ion-releasing self-adherable materials

“…Shebl et al [31] showed lower bond strength results of GCP when com pared to conventional GIC. Also, Munervveroglu et al [32] observed lesser microleakage scores in high viscos ity GIC (EQUIA Fil, C Corp.; Tokyo, Japan) when com pared to GCP. Moreover, Cehreli et al [33] conducted a study evaluating primary molars, and found higher microleakage scores in GCP, which presented internal and surface's cracks when compared to GIC.…”

Correlation between different methodologies used to evaluate the marginal adaptation of proximal dentin gingival margins elevated using a glass hybrid

“…Therefore, the first null hypothesis was accepted. Münevveroğlu et al [ 31 ] reported that water sorption of a non-coated group of highly viscous GI in their study during thermal cycling led to volumetric expansion and marginal sealing comparable to the coated group. This is in agreement with previous studies, which found that non-coated surfaces of GI had higher values of water sorption than coated surfaces, potentially even exceeding the solubility levels of the material [ 32 33 ].…”

“…Conventional GIs, including the GH tested herein, are highly susceptible to dehydration, especially during the early setting period [ 31 ]. Hence, in clinical service, a surface coating is needed to maintain water balance and reduce the resulting dehydration cracks [ 31 40 ]. However, such a coating was not used in the current study.…”

Microleakage and Marginal Integrity of Surface-Coated and Laser-Pretreated Class V Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth

“…Recent investigations reported significantly lower microleakage in the resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer cement restorations in primary dentition coated with G-Coat Plus in primary teeth. 24,25 Conclusively, the surface coating would benefit all types of glass ionomer restorations. 26 The current study also assessed laser pretreatment, which showed no significant effect on the microleakage, compared with the control group.…”