Cargando…

Comparative evaluation of microleakage in class II cavities restored with Ceram X and Filtek P-90: An in vitro study

CONTEXT: Polymerization shrinkage in composite resins is responsible for microleakage. Methacrylate-based composite resins have linear reactive groups resulting in high polymerization shrinkage. A recently introduced composite resin Filtek P90 is based on siloxanes and oxiranes which polymerize by c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bogra, Poonam, Gupta, Saurabh, Kumar, Saru
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3341768/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22557890
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.94539
_version_ 1782231584351453184
author Bogra, Poonam
Gupta, Saurabh
Kumar, Saru
author_facet Bogra, Poonam
Gupta, Saurabh
Kumar, Saru
author_sort Bogra, Poonam
collection PubMed
description CONTEXT: Polymerization shrinkage in composite resins is responsible for microleakage. Methacrylate-based composite resins have linear reactive groups resulting in high polymerization shrinkage. A recently introduced composite resin Filtek P90 is based on siloxanes and oxiranes which polymerize by cationic “ring opening” polymerization resulting in reduced polymerization shrinkage. OBJECTIVES: Aim of this study was to compare microleakage in class II cavities restored with a nanoceramic restorative (Ceram X) and a silorane composite (Filtek P90). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standardized class II box type cavities were prepared on mesial (Groups Ia and IIa) and distal (Groups Ib and IIb) surfaces of twenty extracted permanent molar teeth with gingival floor ending 1 mm coronal and apical to the cementoenamel junction, respectively. The teeth in Group Ia and Ib were restored with Ceram X and Group IIa and IIb with Filtek P90. The specimens were thermocycled and microleakage evaluated. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: The data were statistically analyzed using Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test at the 0.05 level of significance. RESULTS: Mean microleakage score of group la and lb was 1 ± 2.260 and 2.8 ± 1.229, respectively. And that of group Ila and llb was 0.2 ± .869 and 0.3 ± .588, respectively. When groups I and II were compared, results were statistically significant (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: It was concluded that silorane-based composite may be a better substitute for methacrylate-based composites.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3341768
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33417682012-05-03 Comparative evaluation of microleakage in class II cavities restored with Ceram X and Filtek P-90: An in vitro study Bogra, Poonam Gupta, Saurabh Kumar, Saru Contemp Clin Dent Original Article CONTEXT: Polymerization shrinkage in composite resins is responsible for microleakage. Methacrylate-based composite resins have linear reactive groups resulting in high polymerization shrinkage. A recently introduced composite resin Filtek P90 is based on siloxanes and oxiranes which polymerize by cationic “ring opening” polymerization resulting in reduced polymerization shrinkage. OBJECTIVES: Aim of this study was to compare microleakage in class II cavities restored with a nanoceramic restorative (Ceram X) and a silorane composite (Filtek P90). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standardized class II box type cavities were prepared on mesial (Groups Ia and IIa) and distal (Groups Ib and IIb) surfaces of twenty extracted permanent molar teeth with gingival floor ending 1 mm coronal and apical to the cementoenamel junction, respectively. The teeth in Group Ia and Ib were restored with Ceram X and Group IIa and IIb with Filtek P90. The specimens were thermocycled and microleakage evaluated. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: The data were statistically analyzed using Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test at the 0.05 level of significance. RESULTS: Mean microleakage score of group la and lb was 1 ± 2.260 and 2.8 ± 1.229, respectively. And that of group Ila and llb was 0.2 ± .869 and 0.3 ± .588, respectively. When groups I and II were compared, results were statistically significant (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: It was concluded that silorane-based composite may be a better substitute for methacrylate-based composites. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2012 /pmc/articles/PMC3341768/ /pubmed/22557890 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.94539 Text en Copyright: © Contemporary Clinical Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Bogra, Poonam
Gupta, Saurabh
Kumar, Saru
Comparative evaluation of microleakage in class II cavities restored with Ceram X and Filtek P-90: An in vitro study
title Comparative evaluation of microleakage in class II cavities restored with Ceram X and Filtek P-90: An in vitro study
title_full Comparative evaluation of microleakage in class II cavities restored with Ceram X and Filtek P-90: An in vitro study
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of microleakage in class II cavities restored with Ceram X and Filtek P-90: An in vitro study
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of microleakage in class II cavities restored with Ceram X and Filtek P-90: An in vitro study
title_short Comparative evaluation of microleakage in class II cavities restored with Ceram X and Filtek P-90: An in vitro study
title_sort comparative evaluation of microleakage in class ii cavities restored with ceram x and filtek p-90: an in vitro study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3341768/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22557890
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.94539
work_keys_str_mv AT bograpoonam comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageinclassiicavitiesrestoredwithceramxandfiltekp90aninvitrostudy
AT guptasaurabh comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageinclassiicavitiesrestoredwithceramxandfiltekp90aninvitrostudy
AT kumarsaru comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageinclassiicavitiesrestoredwithceramxandfiltekp90aninvitrostudy