MARGINAL LEAKAGE EVALUATION OF GIOMER AND COMPOMER IN PRIMARY TEETH (IN-VITRO STUDY) | ||||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 12, Volume 41, Issue 2, August 2016, Page 188-193 PDF (489.91 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2016.59278 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Eldesouky Heba I.* ; Hanno Azza G.* ; Bakry Niveen S.* ; Ahmed Dawlat M.* | ||||
| Bachelor of Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| INTRODUCTION: Although many restorative materials are available in the market, microleakage around dental restorative materials presents a major problem in clinical dentistry. Giomer (Beautifill II) represents a new generation of dental materials that combines the properties of glass ionomers and composites. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal leakage in primary molars class II restored with Giomer and compare it to that of Compomer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four extracted sound primary molars (n=24) were selected for micro leakage test. Standardized class II cavities were prepared and the teeth were randomly assigned to two groups (n=12). Group I was restored with the Giomer (Beautiful II) and Group II was restored with Compomer (Dyract). Micro leakage test: Teeth were subjected to the process of thermocycling (5 ± 2°C–55 ± 2°C, dwell time 30 s, 1000×). Teeth surfaces were coated with three layers of nail polish except a 1 mm wide window surrounding the margins of the restorations. The restored teeth were immersed in 2% methylene blue solution, sectioned and examined under stereomicroscope. Data were collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed using Mann-Whitney test and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Cervical microleakage scores were higher than occlusal microleakage scores with no significant difference in group I (Giomer) (p=0.915). In group II (Compomer) cervical microleakage scores were significantly higher than occlusal microleakage scores (p=0.033). Group I showed lower microleakage scores than group II and the difference was statistically nonsignificant at p value (0.155). CONCLUSIONS: Although no significant difference was detected, Giomer restorative material showed lower microleakage scores than Compomer. Giomer restorative material could be considered a suitable class II restoration of primary molar in high caries risk children. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Giomers; Compomer; Class II; Microleakage; primary teeth | ||||
| References | ||||
|
1. Lam A. Elements in oral health programs. N Y State
2. Dent J. 2014; 80:26-30.
3. Yengopal V, Harneker SY, Patel N, Siegfried N. Dental fillings for the treatment of caries in the primary dentition. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009; 15: 120- 46.
4. Mali P, Deshpande S, Singh A. Microleakage of restorative materials: An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2006; 24: 15-8.
5. Fleming GJ, Burke FJ, Watson DJ, Owen FJ. Materials for restoration of primary teeth: I. Conventional materials and early glass ionomers. Dent Update. 2001; 28: 486-91.
6. Gupta SK, Gupta J, Saraswathi V, Ballal S, Acharya SR. Comparative evaluation of microleakage in Class V cavities using various glass ionomer cements: An in vitro study. J Interdiscip Dent. 2012; 2: 164-9.
7. Ruse ND. What is a ‘Compomer’? J Can Dent Assoc. 1999; 65: 500-4.
8. Vleria V, Mondragon E, Watson RE, Garvan C, Mjör IA. A clinical evaluation of a self etching primer and a giomer restorative material: Results in 8 years. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007; 138: 621-7.
9. Itota T, Carrick TE, Yoshiyama M, McCabe JF. Fluoride release and recharge in giomer, compomer and resin composite. Dent Mater. 2004; 20: 789-95.
10. Takorova MM, Karajasheva D, Boteva E. Evaluation of microleakage at the interface between cavity walls and giomer and silorane based resins - in vitro study. Scripta Scientifica Medicinae Dentalis. 2015; 1: 38-42.
11. Zheng TL, Huang C, Zhang ZX, Wang S, Zhang G. Influence of storage methods on microtensile bond strength of dentin adhesive system. Shanghai J Stomatology. 2005;14:147-50.
12. El-Negoly SA, Ibrahim FM, Ellatif AA. Immunohistochemical expression of tooth pulp dendritic cells as a response to ceramic reinforced glass ionomer restorative materials. Egypt Dent J. 2009; 55: 93-102.
13. Waggoner WF. Restorative dentistry for the primary dentition. In: Pinkham JR, Casamassimo PS, Mc Tigue DJ, Fields HW, Nowak AJ. Pediatric Dentistry; Infancy through adolescence.4th ed. St. Louis, Mo: El Sevier Saunders; 2005. p. 345-56.
14. Chan DC, Summitt JB, García-Godoy F, Hilton TJ, Chung KH. Evaluation of different methods for cleaning and preparing occlusal fissures. Oper Dent. 1999;24(6):331-6.
15. 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.
16. Murray PE, Hafez AA, Smith AJ, Cox CF. Bacterial microleakage and pulp inflammation associated with various restorative materials. Dent Mater. 2002;18: 470- 8.
17. Fabianelli A, Pollington S, Davidson C, Cagidiaco MC, Goracci C. The relevance of microleakage studies. Int Dent SA. 2007; 9: 64-74.
18. Schüpbach P, Krejci I, Lutz F. Dentin bonding: effect of tubule orientation on hybrid-layer formation. Eur J Oral Sci. 1997; 105: 344-52.
19. Kugel G, Perry RD, Hoang E, Hoang T, Ferrari M. Dyract compomer: comparison of total etch vs. no etch technique. General dentistry. 1997; 46: 604-6.
20. Tate WH, You C, Powers JM. Bond strength of compomers to dentin using acidic primers. Am J Dent. 1999; 12: 235-42.
21. Ernst CP. Positioning self-etching adhesives: versus or in addition to phosphoric acid etching. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2004; 16: 57-69.
22. Erhardt MC, Cavalcante L, Assad M, Pimenta LA. Influence of Phosphoric Acid Pretreatment on SelfEtching Bond Strengths. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2004; 16: 33-40.
23. Roberson TM, Heymann HO, Ritter AV. Introduction to composite restorations. In: Roerson TM, (ed). Sturdevant:s Art and Science of operative Dentistry.4th ed. Missouri: Mosby Publishers; 2002. 479-81.
24. Gale MS, Darvell BW. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent. 1999; 27: 89-99.
25. Alani AH, Toh CG. Detection of microleakage around dental restorations: a review. Oper Dent. 1997; 22: 173- 85.
26. Dejoi J, Sindres V, Camps J. Influence of criteria on the results of invitro evaluation of microleakage. Dent Mater. 1996; 12: 342-9.
27. Deliperi S, Bardwell DN, Wegley C, Congiu MD. In vitro evaluation of giomers microleakage after exposure to 33% hydrogen peroxide: self-etch vs total-etch adhesives. Oper Dent 2006; 31: 227-32.
28. Rekha CV, Varma B J. Comparative evaluation of tensile bond strength and microleakage of conventional glass ionomer cement, resin modified glass ionomer cement and compomer: An in vitrostudy. Contemp Clin Dent.2012; 3: 282-7.
29. Yeolekar TS, Chowdhary NR, Mukunda KS, Kiran NK. Evaluation of Microleakage and Marginal Ridge Fracture Resistance of Primary Molars Restored with Three Restorative Materials: A Comparative in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015;8 :108-13.
30. Aysegül O, Nurhan O, Haluk B, Dilek T. Microleakage of compomer restorations in primary teeth after preparation with bur or air abrasion. Oper Dent. 2005; 30: 164-9.
31. Shruthi AS, Nagaveni NB, Poornima P, Selvamani M, Madhushankari GS, Reddy VS. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of conventional and modifications of glass ionomer cement in primary teeth: An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2015; 33:279-84.
32. Roebuck EM, Whitters CJ, Saunders WP. The influence of three Erbium: YAG laser energies on the in vitro microleakage of Class V compomer resin restorations. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2001; 11: 49-56.
33. Rontani RM, Ducatti CH, Garcia-Godoy F, De Goes MF. Effect of etching agent on dentinal adhesive interface in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2000; 24: 205-9.
34. Sengul F, Gurbuz T. Clinical Evaluation of Restorative Materials in Primary Teeth Class II Lesions. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015; 39:315-21.
35. Van Meerbeek B, Vargas M, Inoue S, Yoshida Y, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, et al. Adhesives and cements to promote preservation dentistry. Oper Dent. 2001; 26: 119-44.
36. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent. 2003; 28: 215-35.
37. Ikemura K, Shinno K, Fujii A, Kimoto FK, Kouro Y. Two-year bonding durability of self-etching adhesives to enamel and dentin. J Dent Res. 2002; 81: 160-9.
38. Yadav G, Rehani U, RanaV. A Comparative Evaluation of Marginal Leakage of Different Restorative Materials. Int J Clin Ped Dent. 2012; 5: 101-7.
39. Pashley DH, Carvalho RM, Sano H, Nakajima M, Yoshiyama M, Shono Y et al. The microtensile bond test: A review. J Adhes Dent. 1999 1; 1:299-309. | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 434 PDF Download: 1,259 |
||||
