Cargando…

Assessment of Microleakage in Class II Cavities having Gingival Wall in Cementum using Three Different Posterior Composites

BACKGROUND: Dental composites are one of the most desired restorative materials today. Composite materials can be bonded successfully to human tooth enamel; however, developing the same degree of adhesion to dentin or cementum is a more challenging task. Polymerization contraction stress of dental c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Narayana, Vanamala, Ashwathanarayana, Srirekha, Nadig, Gururaj, Rudraswamy, Sushma, Doggalli, Nagabhushana, Vijai, S
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dentmedpub Research and Printing Co 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4148570/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25214730
_version_ 1782332646869696512
author Narayana, Vanamala
Ashwathanarayana, Srirekha
Nadig, Gururaj
Rudraswamy, Sushma
Doggalli, Nagabhushana
Vijai, S
author_facet Narayana, Vanamala
Ashwathanarayana, Srirekha
Nadig, Gururaj
Rudraswamy, Sushma
Doggalli, Nagabhushana
Vijai, S
author_sort Narayana, Vanamala
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Dental composites are one of the most desired restorative materials today. Composite materials can be bonded successfully to human tooth enamel; however, developing the same degree of adhesion to dentin or cementum is a more challenging task. Polymerization contraction stress of dental composites is often associated with marginal and interfacial failures of bonded restorations. The magnitude of stress depends on composite composition and its ability to flow before gelation, which is related to the cavity configuration and curing characteristics of the composite. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was carried out on 24 extracted human molars and divided into three groups. Class II (slot) cavities were prepared on the mesial and distal surfaces of the teeth with the gingival wall in dentin/cementum, and the microleakage was observed. After preparation the teeth were randomly assigned into three groups of eight specimens each. The cavities were restored with: Group 1: Packable composite (Surefil, Dentsply); Group 2: Hybrid composite (Filtek Z250, 3M Dental Products); Group 3: Nanocomposite (Filtek Z350, 3M Dental Products). Sixteen samples of each group were subjected to 500 cycles of thermocycling between 5°C and 55°C. All the teeth were immersed in methylene blue for 8 h and then left in tap water for 12 h. The teeth were sectioned mesiodistally with a diamond disc, and examined under a stereomicroscope. RESULTS: The analysis indicated that packable composite showed more microleakage than all the other groups. Hybrid composite showed less microleakage than packable composite, but more leakage than nanocomposite. CONCLUSION: All composites under the study exhibited a certain amount of microleakage in the dentin/cementum margin. Packable composite showed the most microleakage and nanocomposite showed least microleakage. Since these results were obtained in vitro, long-term clinical trials are needed to fully understand the performance of these materials.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4148570
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Dentmedpub Research and Printing Co
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41485702014-09-11 Assessment of Microleakage in Class II Cavities having Gingival Wall in Cementum using Three Different Posterior Composites Narayana, Vanamala Ashwathanarayana, Srirekha Nadig, Gururaj Rudraswamy, Sushma Doggalli, Nagabhushana Vijai, S J Int Oral Health Original Research BACKGROUND: Dental composites are one of the most desired restorative materials today. Composite materials can be bonded successfully to human tooth enamel; however, developing the same degree of adhesion to dentin or cementum is a more challenging task. Polymerization contraction stress of dental composites is often associated with marginal and interfacial failures of bonded restorations. The magnitude of stress depends on composite composition and its ability to flow before gelation, which is related to the cavity configuration and curing characteristics of the composite. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was carried out on 24 extracted human molars and divided into three groups. Class II (slot) cavities were prepared on the mesial and distal surfaces of the teeth with the gingival wall in dentin/cementum, and the microleakage was observed. After preparation the teeth were randomly assigned into three groups of eight specimens each. The cavities were restored with: Group 1: Packable composite (Surefil, Dentsply); Group 2: Hybrid composite (Filtek Z250, 3M Dental Products); Group 3: Nanocomposite (Filtek Z350, 3M Dental Products). Sixteen samples of each group were subjected to 500 cycles of thermocycling between 5°C and 55°C. All the teeth were immersed in methylene blue for 8 h and then left in tap water for 12 h. The teeth were sectioned mesiodistally with a diamond disc, and examined under a stereomicroscope. RESULTS: The analysis indicated that packable composite showed more microleakage than all the other groups. Hybrid composite showed less microleakage than packable composite, but more leakage than nanocomposite. CONCLUSION: All composites under the study exhibited a certain amount of microleakage in the dentin/cementum margin. Packable composite showed the most microleakage and nanocomposite showed least microleakage. Since these results were obtained in vitro, long-term clinical trials are needed to fully understand the performance of these materials. Dentmedpub Research and Printing Co 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC4148570/ /pubmed/25214730 Text en Copyright: © J. Int Oral Health 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 Research
Narayana, Vanamala
Ashwathanarayana, Srirekha
Nadig, Gururaj
Rudraswamy, Sushma
Doggalli, Nagabhushana
Vijai, S
Assessment of Microleakage in Class II Cavities having Gingival Wall in Cementum using Three Different Posterior Composites
title Assessment of Microleakage in Class II Cavities having Gingival Wall in Cementum using Three Different Posterior Composites
title_full Assessment of Microleakage in Class II Cavities having Gingival Wall in Cementum using Three Different Posterior Composites
title_fullStr Assessment of Microleakage in Class II Cavities having Gingival Wall in Cementum using Three Different Posterior Composites
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of Microleakage in Class II Cavities having Gingival Wall in Cementum using Three Different Posterior Composites
title_short Assessment of Microleakage in Class II Cavities having Gingival Wall in Cementum using Three Different Posterior Composites
title_sort assessment of microleakage in class ii cavities having gingival wall in cementum using three different posterior composites
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4148570/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25214730
work_keys_str_mv AT narayanavanamala assessmentofmicroleakageinclassiicavitieshavinggingivalwallincementumusingthreedifferentposteriorcomposites
AT ashwathanarayanasrirekha assessmentofmicroleakageinclassiicavitieshavinggingivalwallincementumusingthreedifferentposteriorcomposites
AT nadiggururaj assessmentofmicroleakageinclassiicavitieshavinggingivalwallincementumusingthreedifferentposteriorcomposites
AT rudraswamysushma assessmentofmicroleakageinclassiicavitieshavinggingivalwallincementumusingthreedifferentposteriorcomposites
AT doggallinagabhushana assessmentofmicroleakageinclassiicavitieshavinggingivalwallincementumusingthreedifferentposteriorcomposites
AT vijais assessmentofmicroleakageinclassiicavitieshavinggingivalwallincementumusingthreedifferentposteriorcomposites