2016
DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1365
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sealing Ability of Nano-ionomer in Primary Teeth: Anex vivoStudy

Abstract: IntroductionMicroleakage is an important consideration in primary dentition because the floor of the cavity preparation may be close to the pulp. The added insult to the pulp caused by seepage of irritants around the restoration and through the thin dentin may produce irreversible pulp damage.AimThe objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the sealing ability of three light cured (LC) resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RMGICs) in primary anterior teeth.Materials and methodsClass V cavity was prep… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 98 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results of this study showed that EQUIA Forte was the only restoration that inhibited microleakage at both occlusal and cervical margins, while in both Fuji II LC and Riva light cure higher leakage was detected .This was in agreement with another study (4) who found that EQUIA showed less microleakage than RMGICs. This might be due to that the coefficient of thermal expansion of EQUIA is similar to that of adjacent tooth structure, which could be a reason for less microleakage observed in EQUIA as compared to Fuji II LC , while the coefficient of thermal expansion being quite high as compared to tooth structure for the latter (5) .While in another study (6) the EQUIA system showed results very similar to resin modified glass ionomer, and this might be due to the fact that it compared other types of RMGICs (Ketac Molar and Photac Fil) with EQUIA system in class I cavities and without thermocycling.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…The results of this study showed that EQUIA Forte was the only restoration that inhibited microleakage at both occlusal and cervical margins, while in both Fuji II LC and Riva light cure higher leakage was detected .This was in agreement with another study (4) who found that EQUIA showed less microleakage than RMGICs. This might be due to that the coefficient of thermal expansion of EQUIA is similar to that of adjacent tooth structure, which could be a reason for less microleakage observed in EQUIA as compared to Fuji II LC , while the coefficient of thermal expansion being quite high as compared to tooth structure for the latter (5) .While in another study (6) the EQUIA system showed results very similar to resin modified glass ionomer, and this might be due to the fact that it compared other types of RMGICs (Ketac Molar and Photac Fil) with EQUIA system in class I cavities and without thermocycling.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…Microleakage in primary dentition is an important consideration because the seepage of irritants around the restoration and through the thin dentin may produce irreversible pulp damage. 19 In underdeveloped and developing countries, the burden of curative treatment of caries is high and further iatrogenic endodontic treatment will jeopardize the efforts. There is a need for a restorative material which will not only provide adhesive seal but will also have antibacterial activity against pathogens involved in deep caries progression.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even though pH of Vitremer's primer was low enough to react with smear layer from the dentin surface, Vitrebond copolymer may react with tooth structure and formed a polyalkenoate salt that prevented the penetration of resin part of material into dentinal tubules, and might cause the material to be prone to leakage. 87,88 The fact that the RMGIs material used in this On the other hand, the result showed that microleakage at dentin interfaces in the control group and resin composite group were comparable. Moreover, at the inlay interfaces, microleakage scores of the resin composite group were lower than the RMGI group.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%