MICROLEAKAGE OF CLASS II COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS WITH DIFFERENT RESTORATIVE TECHNIQUES (AN IN VITRO STUDY) | ||||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 4, Volume 41, Issue 2, August 2016, Page 138-145 PDF (709.29 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2016.59268 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Tayel Dalia M* ; El-Sharkawy Mahmoud M* ; Mahmoud El-Sayed M* | ||||
| Bachelor of Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Misr university for science and Technology, 6 October, Egypt. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| INTRODUCTION: Microleakage has been regarded as a primary concern for the use of composites in class II cavity restorations. Many techniques have attempted to minimize this leakage. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this in-vitro study was to evaluate the microleakage in class II cavities restored with composite resins applied with either incremental, bulk fill or Sonic fill techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty sound human permanent lower molars extracted for periodontal problems. Occluso-mesial class II cavity was prepared in each tooth, with the cervical margin of the proximal box located 1 mm occlusal to the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ). The prepared teeth were randomly distributed to four groups with 10 specimens each (n=10). In each group, a self-etch adhesive was applied, followed by composite resin that was applied in either incremental, bulk fill or sonic fill technique; Group I: [Optibond all in one +Herculite XRV Ultra], Group II: [ Optibond all in one+ Premise flowable + Herculite XRV Ultra], Group III: [Single bond universal+Filtek bulkfill + Filtek Z250XT], Group IV: [ Optibond all in oneSonicFill]. All restored specimens were soaked in basic fuchsin dye for 24 hours, and sectioned mesiodistally to detect the extent of dye penetration by stereomicroscope. Data were collected and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The cervical margins showed more microleakage than the occlusal margins. Sonicfill in Group IV recorded the lowest mean value of microleakage scores among the four groups occlusally (mean=0.10), whereas Premise Flowable + Hercuilte XRV Ultra in Group II showed the highest mean value (1.20) . Sonic fill in Group 1V recorded the lowest mean value of microleakage scores among the four groups cervically (mean= 0.80), whereas Premise Flowable + Hercuilte XRV Ultra in Group II showed the highest mean value (1.60). Kruskall-Wallis test proved no significant difference among groups. Mann Whitney test proved significant difference between Group II and Group IV occlusally. CONCLUSIONS: Sonic fill showed the best results in terms of marginal seal | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Microleakage; Class II; Composite | ||||
| References | ||||
|
1. Alonso RC, Sinhoreti MA, Correr Sobrinho L, Consani S, Goes MF. Effect of resin liners on the microleakage of class V dental composite restorations. J Appl Oral Sci 2004; 12: 56-61.
2. Bayındır YZ, Bayındır F, Zorba YO, Turgut H. Influence of different bonding systems and soft-start polymerization marginal gap formation. Mater Res Innovat 2008; 12: 166-71.
3. Simi B, Suprabha B. Evaluation of microleakage in posterior nanocomposite restorations with adhesive liners. J Conserv Dent 2011; 14: 178-81.
4. Kwon Y, Ferracane J, Lee IB. Effect of layering methods, composite type, and flowable liner on the polymerization shrinkage stress of light cured composites. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 801-9.
5. Soares CJ, Bicalho AA, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A. Polymerization shrinkage stresses in a premolar restored with different composite resins and different incremental techniques. J Adhes Dent 2013; 15: 341-50.
6. Bicalho AA, Valdivia AD, Barreto BC, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A, Soares CJ. Incremental filling technique and composite material—Part II: Shrinkage and shrinkage stresses. Oper Dent 2014; 39: e83-e92.
7. Radhika M, Sajjan GS, Kumaraswamy BN, Mittal N. Effect of different placement techniques on marginal microleakage of deep class-II cavities restored with two composite resin formulations. J Conserv Dent 2010; 13: 9-15.
8. Nagpal R, Manuja N, Tyagi SP, Singh UP. In vitro bonding effectiveness of self-etch adhesives with different application techniques: a microleakage and scanning electron microscopic study. J Conserv Dent 2011; 14: 258-63.
9. Cenci M, Demarco F, de Carvalho R. Class II composite resin restorations with two polymerization techniques: relationship between microtensile bond strength and marginal leakage. J Dent 2005; 33: 603-10.
10. Duarte S Jr, Saad JR. Marginal adaptation of class 2 adhesive restorations. Quintessence Int 2008; 39: 413-9.
11. Tarle Z, Attin T, Marovic D, Andermatt L, Ristic M, Tauböck TT. Influence of irradiation time on subsurface degree of conversion and microhardness of high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19: 831-40.
12. Ilie N, Kebler A, Duner J. Influence of various irradiation processes on the mechanical properties and polymerization kinetics of bulk-fill resin based composites. J Dent 2013; 41: 695-702.
13. Surefil SDR Flow: Compilation of Studies - Dentsply. Available at: https://www.dentsply.com/content/dam/dentsply/master/ document/2/2015-SureFil-SDR-flow-Literature-Reviewzvcxypk-en-1509.pdf.
14. Leprince JG, Palin WM, Vanacker J, Sabbsgh J, Devaux J, Leloup G. Physico-mechanical characteristics of commercially available bulk-fill composites. J Dent 2014; 42: 993-1000.
15. Sybron Dental Specialties Inc., “SonicFillTM System,” 2011. Available at: www.sonicfill.eu.
16. Cakir D, Sergent R, Burgess JO. Polymerization Shrinkage—A Clinical Review. Inside Dentistry. 2007. Available at: https://www.dentalaegis.com/id/2007/09/polymerizationshrinkage-clinical-review#sthash.lPsiEd1b.dpuf
17. Vichi A, Margvelashvili M, Goracci C, Papacchini F, Ferrari M. Bonding and sealing ability of a new selfadhering flowable composite resin in class I restorations. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17: 1497-506.
18. Tuloglu N, Tunc E, Ozer S, Bayrak S. Shear bond strength of self-adhering flowable composite on dentin with and without application of an adhesive system. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater 2014; 12: 97-101.
19. Küçükeşmen C, Sönmez H. Microleakage of class v composite restorations with different bonding systems on fluorosed teeth. Eur J Dent 2008; 2: 48-58.
20. Eick, JD, Gwinnett AJ, Pashley DH, Robinson SJ. Current concepts on adhesion to dentin. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 1997; 83: 306-35.
21. Demarco FF, Ramos OL, Mota CS, Formolo E, Justino LM. Influence of different restorative techniques on microleakage in Class II cavities with gingival wall in cementum. Oper Dent 2001; 26: 253-9.
22. Rajbaran S, Dannheimer M, De Wet F. The effect of thermocycling on the determination of microleakage in permite amalgam restorations. SADJ 2009; 64: 394-6.
23. Gogna R, Jagadis S, Shashikal K. A comparative in vitro study of microleakage by a radioactive isotope and compressive strength of three nanofilled composite resin restorations. J Conserv Dent 2011; 14: 128-31.
24. Wahab FK, Shaini FJ, Morgano SM. The effect of thermocycling on microleakage of several commercially available composite Class V restorations in vitro. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 90: 168-74.
25. Fabianelli A, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Sealing ability of packable resin composites in class II restorations. J Adhes Dent 2003; 5: 217-23.
26. Moazzami SM, Sarabi N, Hajizadeh H, Majidinia S, Li Y, Meharry MR, et al. Efficacy of four lining materials in sandwich technique to reduce microleakage in class II composite resin restorations. Oper Dent 2014; 39: 256-63.
27. Poskus LT, Placido E, Cardoso PE. Influence of adhesive system and placement technique on microleakage of resinbased composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 2004; 6: 227- 32.
28. Coutinho M, Trevizam NC, Takayassu RN, Leme AA, Soares GP. Distance and protective barrier effects on the composite resin degree of conversion. J Contemp Clin Dent 2013; 4: 152-5.
29. Poggio C, Chiesa M, Scribante A, Mekler J, Colombo M. Microleakage in Class II composite restorations with margins below the CEJ: in vitro evaluation of different restorative techniques. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2013; 18: 793-8.
30. Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Complete marginal seal of Class V resin composite restorations effected by increased flexibility. J Dent Res 1990; 69: 1240-3.
31. Hatrick CD, Eakle WS. Dental Materials: Clinical Applications for Dental Assistants and Dental Hygienists. Canada: Elsevier Health Sciences, 2015. 384.
32. Kalmowicz J, Phebus JG, Owens BM, Johnson WW, King GT. Microleakage of Class I and II Composite Resin Restorations Using a Sonic-resin Placement System. Oper Dent 2015; 40: 653-61.
33. Kapoor N, Bahuguna N, Anand S. Influence of composite insertion technique on gap formation. J Conserv Dent 2016; 19: 77-81.
34. Kim RJ, Kim YJ, Choi NS, Lee IB. Polymerization shrinkage, modulus, and shrinkage stress related to toothrestoration interfacial debonding in bulk-fill composites. J Dent 2015; 43: 430-9.
35. Pecie R, Onisor I, Krejci I, Bortolotto T. Marginal adaptation of direct class II composite restorations with different cavity liners. Oper Dent 2013; 38: E210-20.
36. Hernandes NM, Catelan A, Soares GP, Ambrosano GM, Lima DA, Marchi GM, et al. Influence of flowable composite and restorative technique on microleakage of class II restorations. J Investig Clin Dent 2014; 5: 283-8.
37. Oliveira LC, Duarte S Jr, Araujo CA, Abrahão A. Effect of low-elastic modulus liner and base as stress-absorbing layer in composite resin restorations. Dent Mater 2010; 26: e159- 69.
38. Malmström HS, Schlueter M, Roach T, Moss ME. The effect of thickness of flowable resins on marginal leakage in class 2 composite restoration. Oper Dent 2002; 27: 373-80.
39. Labella R, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G. Polymerization shrinkage and elasticity of flowable composites and filled adhesives. Dent Mater. 1999; 15: 128-37.
40. Simi B, Suprabha BS. Evaluation of microleakage in posterior nanocomposite restoration with adhesive linner. J Consev Dent 2011; 14: 178-81. | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 362 PDF Download: 787 |
||||
