Cargando…

A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Two Low-Shrinkage Composites with a Conventional Resin Composite: an In Vitro Assessment

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: Polymerization shrinkage stress in composite restorations may lead to microleakage. Clinical methods such as using low-shrinkage composites have been suggested to overcome this problem; however, there are controversies about their efficiency in decreasing the microleakage....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tavangar, Maryam, Tayefeh Davalloo, Reza, Darabi, Farideh, Karambin, Mahsa, Kazemi, Reza
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Shiraz University of Medical Sciences 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4771054/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26966710
_version_ 1782418360639684608
author Tavangar, Maryam
Tayefeh Davalloo, Reza
Darabi, Farideh
Karambin, Mahsa
Kazemi, Reza
author_facet Tavangar, Maryam
Tayefeh Davalloo, Reza
Darabi, Farideh
Karambin, Mahsa
Kazemi, Reza
author_sort Tavangar, Maryam
collection PubMed
description STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: Polymerization shrinkage stress in composite restorations may lead to microleakage. Clinical methods such as using low-shrinkage composites have been suggested to overcome this problem; however, there are controversies about their efficiency in decreasing the microleakage. PURPOSE: This in vitro study was conducted to compare the microleakage of two low-shrinkage resin composites with a conventional one. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Fifty class V cavities of 2.5×3×2 mm (depth× length× width) were prepared in the buccal surfaces of intact bovine incisor teeth with the incisal margin on the enamel and gingival margin on the cementum. The teeth were randomly divided into 5 groups. In group 1, Clearfil APX (conventional) with SE Bond was used in 2 layers (Kuraray; Japan). In group 2, GC Kalore (low –shrinkage) with GC UniFil Bond was applied in one layer (GC Company). In group 3, the material of group 2 was applied in two layers. In group 4, FiltekP90 (low –shrinkage) with P90 System adhesive was applied in one layer (3M ESPE). In group 5, the materials of group 4 were applied in two layers. The samples were thermocycled and immersed in 0.5% fuchsin solution for 24h. The restorations were sectioned in buccolingual direction. Then they were evaluated for microleakage by using a stereomicroscope and scored as 0, 1, 2, and 3 and then Kruskal-Wallis test was used (p< 0.05). RESULTS: The groups were not significantly different regarding the microleakage in the coronal and cervical margins (p< 0.423 and p< 0.212, respectively); however, the Filtek P90 yielded the best results. In all groups, except group 5 (p= 0.018), the cervical margins had greater microleakage than the coronal margins. CONCLUSION: The results suggested that low-shrinkage resin composites may not reduce the marginal microleakage. The proper use of conventional resin composites may offer comparable clinical results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4771054
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47710542016-03-10 A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Two Low-Shrinkage Composites with a Conventional Resin Composite: an In Vitro Assessment Tavangar, Maryam Tayefeh Davalloo, Reza Darabi, Farideh Karambin, Mahsa Kazemi, Reza J Dent (Shiraz) Original Article STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: Polymerization shrinkage stress in composite restorations may lead to microleakage. Clinical methods such as using low-shrinkage composites have been suggested to overcome this problem; however, there are controversies about their efficiency in decreasing the microleakage. PURPOSE: This in vitro study was conducted to compare the microleakage of two low-shrinkage resin composites with a conventional one. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Fifty class V cavities of 2.5×3×2 mm (depth× length× width) were prepared in the buccal surfaces of intact bovine incisor teeth with the incisal margin on the enamel and gingival margin on the cementum. The teeth were randomly divided into 5 groups. In group 1, Clearfil APX (conventional) with SE Bond was used in 2 layers (Kuraray; Japan). In group 2, GC Kalore (low –shrinkage) with GC UniFil Bond was applied in one layer (GC Company). In group 3, the material of group 2 was applied in two layers. In group 4, FiltekP90 (low –shrinkage) with P90 System adhesive was applied in one layer (3M ESPE). In group 5, the materials of group 4 were applied in two layers. The samples were thermocycled and immersed in 0.5% fuchsin solution for 24h. The restorations were sectioned in buccolingual direction. Then they were evaluated for microleakage by using a stereomicroscope and scored as 0, 1, 2, and 3 and then Kruskal-Wallis test was used (p< 0.05). RESULTS: The groups were not significantly different regarding the microleakage in the coronal and cervical margins (p< 0.423 and p< 0.212, respectively); however, the Filtek P90 yielded the best results. In all groups, except group 5 (p= 0.018), the cervical margins had greater microleakage than the coronal margins. CONCLUSION: The results suggested that low-shrinkage resin composites may not reduce the marginal microleakage. The proper use of conventional resin composites may offer comparable clinical results. Shiraz University of Medical Sciences 2016-03 /pmc/articles/PMC4771054/ /pubmed/26966710 Text en © 2016: Journal of dentistry (Shiraz) This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Tavangar, Maryam
Tayefeh Davalloo, Reza
Darabi, Farideh
Karambin, Mahsa
Kazemi, Reza
A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Two Low-Shrinkage Composites with a Conventional Resin Composite: an In Vitro Assessment
title A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Two Low-Shrinkage Composites with a Conventional Resin Composite: an In Vitro Assessment
title_full A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Two Low-Shrinkage Composites with a Conventional Resin Composite: an In Vitro Assessment
title_fullStr A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Two Low-Shrinkage Composites with a Conventional Resin Composite: an In Vitro Assessment
title_full_unstemmed A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Two Low-Shrinkage Composites with a Conventional Resin Composite: an In Vitro Assessment
title_short A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Two Low-Shrinkage Composites with a Conventional Resin Composite: an In Vitro Assessment
title_sort comparative evaluation of microleakage of two low-shrinkage composites with a conventional resin composite: an in vitro assessment
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4771054/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26966710
work_keys_str_mv AT tavangarmaryam acomparativeevaluationofmicroleakageoftwolowshrinkagecompositeswithaconventionalresincompositeaninvitroassessment
AT tayefehdavallooreza acomparativeevaluationofmicroleakageoftwolowshrinkagecompositeswithaconventionalresincompositeaninvitroassessment
AT darabifarideh acomparativeevaluationofmicroleakageoftwolowshrinkagecompositeswithaconventionalresincompositeaninvitroassessment
AT karambinmahsa acomparativeevaluationofmicroleakageoftwolowshrinkagecompositeswithaconventionalresincompositeaninvitroassessment
AT kazemireza acomparativeevaluationofmicroleakageoftwolowshrinkagecompositeswithaconventionalresincompositeaninvitroassessment
AT tavangarmaryam comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageoftwolowshrinkagecompositeswithaconventionalresincompositeaninvitroassessment
AT tayefehdavallooreza comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageoftwolowshrinkagecompositeswithaconventionalresincompositeaninvitroassessment
AT darabifarideh comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageoftwolowshrinkagecompositeswithaconventionalresincompositeaninvitroassessment
AT karambinmahsa comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageoftwolowshrinkagecompositeswithaconventionalresincompositeaninvitroassessment
AT kazemireza comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageoftwolowshrinkagecompositeswithaconventionalresincompositeaninvitroassessment