A Comparative Evaluation of EQUIA Forte Microleakage Versus Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer | ||
| Al-Azhar Journal of Dentistry | ||
| Volume 6, Issue 3, July 2019, Pages 249-254 PDF (406.76 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjg.2019.6774.1065 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Aya Ali1; Magda EL-Malt2; Eman Mohamed1 | ||
| 1Pedodontics and Oral Health Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al-Azhar University, Egypt. | ||
| 2Associate Professor, Pedodontics and oral Health Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al-Azhar University, Egypt. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Purpose: To compare between micoleakage of EQUIA Forte and resin modified glass ionomer cement in primary and permanent teeth. Materials and methods: Preparation of class v cavities on the labial surface of 45 primary anterior teeth and 45 premolars was done. Teeth were then grouped and restored with EQUIA Forte, Fuji II LC, or Riva light cure. The microleakage at tooth restoration interface was done using dye penetration test with methylene blue. Scores were recorded for dye penetration depth at the occlual and cervical margins using stereomicroscope.Results: Occlusal and cervical segments of primary and permanent teeth showed that higher scores were recorded in Fugi II LC, lower scores were recorded in Riva light cure and the lowest scores were in EQUIA Forte. Chi square test revealed a significant difference between restorative materials (p=0.00). Conclusion: Among the three restorative materials, EQUIA Forte can be considered as the best material in the term of microleakage. Periodic evaluation is advised when any of the three materials are used in clinical practice. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| EQUIA Forte; Fuji II LC; methylene blue; Microleakage; Riva light cure | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 31 PDF Download: 7 |
||
