sdj-10092

Estimation of the Gingival microleakage of Two Composite Resins with Three Insertion Techniques for Class V Restorations (In-Vitro Comparative Study)

Ubaydah F. AL-Gailani*, Salam D. Alqaysi**

*Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq.

**Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Sulaimani, Sulaimani, Iraq.

Submitted: 09/09/2019; Accepted: 02/10/2019; Published 29/12/2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17656/sdj.10092

Abstract

Objective: Evaluating the marginal microleakage of two different composite resins with three different restorative techniques in class V cavities with the cervical margins within the cementoenamel junction.

Methods: Sixty standardized box-shaped class V cavities of 2×2×3 mm (depth, length, width) prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 30 freshly extracted healthy human premolars. The teeth randomly divided into two equal groups: group A (FiltekTM Z250 XT) and group B (BeautifilTM II LS giomer). Then each group is subdivided into 3 equal subgroups: group I (bulk technique-10 cavities), group II ( split horizontal technique-10 cavities) and group III (vertical technique-10 cavities) and filled according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The samples were subjected to thermocycling (5°C ±2°C & 55°C ±2°C with a 30 seconds dwell time) and immersed in 2% buffered Methylene blue solution at 37°C for 24 hours. The restorations were sectioned longitudinally in buccolingual direction through the centers of the restoration. Then evaluated for microleakage using a stereomicroscope at 10x magnification and scored as 0, 1, 2, and 3. Non-parametric Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used and p value ≤ 0.05 considred statistically significant.

Results: Split increment horizontal layering technique showed statistically significant lower microleakage than vertical layering and bulk technique. While giomer showed less microleakage than Z250 but statistically not significant.

Conclusions: The use of split horizontal technique and giomer composite offers better and less marginal microleakage in class V restorations.

Keywords: Microleakage, Cl V cavity, Giomer, Nano-hybrid composite, Layering technique. Full Article - PDF

References:

1. Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of Restorations in Posterior Teeth and Reasons for Failure. J Adhes Dent. 2001;3(1):45-64.

2. Sharafeddin F, Feizi N. Evaluation of The Effect of Adding Micro-Hydroxyapatite and Nano-Hydroxyapatite On the Microleakage of Conventional and Resin-Modified Glass- Ionomer Cl V Restorations. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(2):e242-e8.

3. Kidd E, Fejerskov O. Essentials of Dental Caries. Kidd E, Fejerskov O, editors: Oxford University Press.; 2016.

4. Ferracane JL. Resin composite--state of the art. Dent Mater. 2011;27(1):29-38.

5. KayaMS, Bakkal M, Durmus A, Durmus Z. Structural and mechanical properties of a giomer-based bulk fill restorative in different curing conditions. J Appl Oral Sci: 2018;26:e20160662.

6. Tavangar M, Davalloo RT, Darabi F, Karambin M, Kazemi R. A comparative evaluation of microleakage of two low- shrinkage composites with a conventional resin composite: an in vitro assessment. J Dent. 2016;17(1):55.

7. Usha H, Kumari A, Mehta D, Kaiwar A, Jain N. Comparing microleakage and layering methods of silorane-based resin composite in class V cavities using confocal microscopy: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2011;14(2):164- 8.

8. Silveira de Araujo C, Incerti da Silva T, Ogliari FA, Meireles SS, Piva E, Demarco FF. Microleakage of seven adhesive systems in enamel and dentin. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2006;7(5):26-33.

9. Zakavi F, Hagh LG, Sadeghian S, Freckelton V, Daraeighadikolaei A, Ghanatir E, Zarnaghash N. Evaluation of microleakage of class II dental composite resin restorations cured with LED or QTH dental curing light; Blind, Cluster Randomized, In vitro cross sectional study. BMC Res Notes. 2014;7(1):416.

10. Trushkowsky RD. Composite Resin: Fundamentals and Direct Technique Restorations. Esthetic Dentistry-E-Book: A Clinical Approach to Techniques and Materials. 2014 Nov 26:83.

11. Chandrasekhar V, Rudrapati L, Badami V, Tummala M. Incremental techniques in direct composite restoration. J Conserv Dent: JCD. 2017;20(6):386-91.

12. Roberto LG, Francesco P, Carmine V, Marco M, Angela A, Angelo L. Bulk vs wedge shape layering techniques in V class cavities: marginal infiltration evaluation. Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia. 2017;31(2):73-7.

13. Giachetti L, Scaminaci Russo D, Bambi C, Grandini R. A review of polymerization shrinkage stress: current techniques for posterior direct resin restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2006;7(4):79-88.

14. Hassan KA, Khier SE. Split-increment technique: an alternative approach for large cervical composite resin restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007;8(2):121-8.

15. Moosavi H, Zeynali M, Pour ZH. Fracture resistance of premolars restored by various types and placement techniques of resin composites. Int J Dent. 2012;973641.

16. Nikolaenko SA, Lohbauer U, Roggendorf M, Petschelt A, Dasch W, Frankenberger R. Influence of c-factor and layering technique on microtensile bond strength to dentin. Dent Mater. 2004;20(6):579-85.

17. Al-Zahawi AR, Abdul-Rahman MS, Ahmed SM. Effect of two different composites on gingival microleakage of class II restoration using four different placement techniques (An in vitro study). Inter J Rec Adv Multidiscip Res. 2015;2(9):0727-31.

18. Hassan K. Polymerization Shrinkage Stress Reduction in Direct Occlusal Composite Restoration Placed Using Split-increment Horizontal Technique-Case Report. Webmed Central Dentistry 2010;1(9):WMC00626.

19. Duarte S, Jr., Dinelli W, da Silva MH. Influence of resin composite insertion technique in preparations with a high C-factor. Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany: 1985). 2007;38(10):829-35.

20. Shofu. Beautifil™ II LS Technical Product File [homepage on the Internet]. [cited 2019 July 5]. Available from:2019.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.