Cargando…
Evaluation of Gingival Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations with Different Lining Techniques: An In Vitro Study
Aim. To compare the microleakage in class II composite restorations without a liner/with resin modified glass ionomer and flowable composite liner. Method. Forty standardized MO cavities were prepared on human permanent mandibular molars extracted for periodontal reasons and then divided into 4 grou...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4677032/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26759730 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/896507 |
_version_ | 1782405273432883200 |
---|---|
author | Bore Gowda, Vedavathi Sreenivasa Murthy, B. V. Hegde, Swaroop Venkataramanaswamy, Swapna Devarasanahalli Pai, Veena Suresh Krishna, Rashmi |
author_facet | Bore Gowda, Vedavathi Sreenivasa Murthy, B. V. Hegde, Swaroop Venkataramanaswamy, Swapna Devarasanahalli Pai, Veena Suresh Krishna, Rashmi |
author_sort | Bore Gowda, Vedavathi |
collection | PubMed |
description | Aim. To compare the microleakage in class II composite restorations without a liner/with resin modified glass ionomer and flowable composite liner. Method. Forty standardized MO cavities were prepared on human permanent mandibular molars extracted for periodontal reasons and then divided into 4 groups of ten specimens. The cavity preparations were etched, rinsed, blot dried, and light cured and Adper Single Bond 2 is applied. Group 1 is restored with Filtek P60 packable composite in 2 mm oblique increments. Group 2 is precure group where 1 mm Filtek Z350 flowable liner is applied and light cured for 20 sec. Group 3 is the same as Group 2, but the liner was cocured with packable composite. In Group 4, 1 mm RMGIC, Fuji Lining LC is applied and cured for 20 sec. All the teeth were restored as in Group 1. The specimens were coated with nail varnish leaving 1 mm around the restoration, subjected to thermocycling, basic fuchsin dye penetration, sectioned mesiodistally, and observed under a stereomicroscope. Results. The mean leakage scores of the individual study groups were Group 1 (33.40), Group 2 (7.85), Group 3 (16.40), and Group 4 (24.35). Group 1 without a liner showed maximum leakage. Flowable composite liner precured was the best. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4677032 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Hindawi Publishing Corporation |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46770322016-01-12 Evaluation of Gingival Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations with Different Lining Techniques: An In Vitro Study Bore Gowda, Vedavathi Sreenivasa Murthy, B. V. Hegde, Swaroop Venkataramanaswamy, Swapna Devarasanahalli Pai, Veena Suresh Krishna, Rashmi Scientifica (Cairo) Research Article Aim. To compare the microleakage in class II composite restorations without a liner/with resin modified glass ionomer and flowable composite liner. Method. Forty standardized MO cavities were prepared on human permanent mandibular molars extracted for periodontal reasons and then divided into 4 groups of ten specimens. The cavity preparations were etched, rinsed, blot dried, and light cured and Adper Single Bond 2 is applied. Group 1 is restored with Filtek P60 packable composite in 2 mm oblique increments. Group 2 is precure group where 1 mm Filtek Z350 flowable liner is applied and light cured for 20 sec. Group 3 is the same as Group 2, but the liner was cocured with packable composite. In Group 4, 1 mm RMGIC, Fuji Lining LC is applied and cured for 20 sec. All the teeth were restored as in Group 1. The specimens were coated with nail varnish leaving 1 mm around the restoration, subjected to thermocycling, basic fuchsin dye penetration, sectioned mesiodistally, and observed under a stereomicroscope. Results. The mean leakage scores of the individual study groups were Group 1 (33.40), Group 2 (7.85), Group 3 (16.40), and Group 4 (24.35). Group 1 without a liner showed maximum leakage. Flowable composite liner precured was the best. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2015 2015-11-29 /pmc/articles/PMC4677032/ /pubmed/26759730 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/896507 Text en Copyright © 2015 Vedavathi Bore Gowda et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Bore Gowda, Vedavathi Sreenivasa Murthy, B. V. Hegde, Swaroop Venkataramanaswamy, Swapna Devarasanahalli Pai, Veena Suresh Krishna, Rashmi Evaluation of Gingival Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations with Different Lining Techniques: An In Vitro Study |
title | Evaluation of Gingival Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations with Different Lining Techniques: An In Vitro Study |
title_full | Evaluation of Gingival Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations with Different Lining Techniques: An In Vitro Study |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of Gingival Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations with Different Lining Techniques: An In Vitro Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of Gingival Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations with Different Lining Techniques: An In Vitro Study |
title_short | Evaluation of Gingival Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations with Different Lining Techniques: An In Vitro Study |
title_sort | evaluation of gingival microleakage in class ii composite restorations with different lining techniques: an in vitro study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4677032/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26759730 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/896507 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT boregowdavedavathi evaluationofgingivalmicroleakageinclassiicompositerestorationswithdifferentliningtechniquesaninvitrostudy AT sreenivasamurthybv evaluationofgingivalmicroleakageinclassiicompositerestorationswithdifferentliningtechniquesaninvitrostudy AT hegdeswaroop evaluationofgingivalmicroleakageinclassiicompositerestorationswithdifferentliningtechniquesaninvitrostudy AT venkataramanaswamyswapnadevarasanahalli evaluationofgingivalmicroleakageinclassiicompositerestorationswithdifferentliningtechniquesaninvitrostudy AT paiveenasuresh evaluationofgingivalmicroleakageinclassiicompositerestorationswithdifferentliningtechniquesaninvitrostudy AT krishnarashmi evaluationofgingivalmicroleakageinclassiicompositerestorationswithdifferentliningtechniquesaninvitrostudy |