Cargando…

Microleakage around Class V Composite Restorations after Ultrasonic Scaling and Sonic Toothbrushing around their Margin

OBJECTIVES: To measure microleakage around class V composite restorations after piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling and sonic toothbrushing. METHODS: 3 mm × 2 mm × 1.5 mm boxes were prepared on buccal and lingual surfaces of extracted molars centered on the cementum‐enamel junction. Half the preparatio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Goldstein, Ronald E., Lamba, Suruchi, Lawson, Nathaniel C., Beck, Preston, Oster, Robert A., Burgess, John O.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5292089/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27612323
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12262
_version_ 1782504871652491264
author Goldstein, Ronald E.
Lamba, Suruchi
Lawson, Nathaniel C.
Beck, Preston
Oster, Robert A.
Burgess, John O.
author_facet Goldstein, Ronald E.
Lamba, Suruchi
Lawson, Nathaniel C.
Beck, Preston
Oster, Robert A.
Burgess, John O.
author_sort Goldstein, Ronald E.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To measure microleakage around class V composite restorations after piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling and sonic toothbrushing. METHODS: 3 mm × 2 mm × 1.5 mm boxes were prepared on buccal and lingual surfaces of extracted molars centered on the cementum‐enamel junction. Half the preparations were beveled (0.5 mm). Preparations were restored with composite and polished. Restorations on one side of the teeth were either traced with an ultrasonic scaler (60 seconds, n = 16) or brushed in a sonic toothbrushing machine (2 hours, n = 16). After thermocycling (10,000 cycles/5–55°C), specimens were immersed in 5 wt% Fuchsine solution (24 hours). Samples were sectioned and evaluated for percentage of dye penetration. Data were analyzed with an exact Wilcoxon rank‐sum test and exact Wilcoxon signed‐rank test (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: Microleakage was observed at the cementum‐composite interface but not the enamel‐composite interface. There was not a statistically significant effect of the bevel for ultrasonic scaling or for sonic toothbrushing. Data obtained with and without a bevel were combined and a statistically significant difference in microleakage between the treatment and control sides of the tooth were found for ultrasonic scaling (32.5%±44.9%, n = 16; p = 0.016) but not sonic toothbrushing (2.5% ± 41.2%, n = 16; p = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling increased microleakage at cementum‐composite interface and there was no difference in microleakage with the use of a bevel. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Piezoelectric sonic scaling around Class V composite restorations with margins in cementum should be avoided. Beveled margins will not reduce the incidence of microleakge resulting from ultrasonic scaling in Class V restorations. Placing the apical margin of the restoration in enamel should be attempted whenever possible to prevent future microleakage. (J Esthet Restor Dent 29:41–48, 2017)
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5292089
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52920892017-03-08 Microleakage around Class V Composite Restorations after Ultrasonic Scaling and Sonic Toothbrushing around their Margin Goldstein, Ronald E. Lamba, Suruchi Lawson, Nathaniel C. Beck, Preston Oster, Robert A. Burgess, John O. J Esthet Restor Dent Research Articles OBJECTIVES: To measure microleakage around class V composite restorations after piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling and sonic toothbrushing. METHODS: 3 mm × 2 mm × 1.5 mm boxes were prepared on buccal and lingual surfaces of extracted molars centered on the cementum‐enamel junction. Half the preparations were beveled (0.5 mm). Preparations were restored with composite and polished. Restorations on one side of the teeth were either traced with an ultrasonic scaler (60 seconds, n = 16) or brushed in a sonic toothbrushing machine (2 hours, n = 16). After thermocycling (10,000 cycles/5–55°C), specimens were immersed in 5 wt% Fuchsine solution (24 hours). Samples were sectioned and evaluated for percentage of dye penetration. Data were analyzed with an exact Wilcoxon rank‐sum test and exact Wilcoxon signed‐rank test (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: Microleakage was observed at the cementum‐composite interface but not the enamel‐composite interface. There was not a statistically significant effect of the bevel for ultrasonic scaling or for sonic toothbrushing. Data obtained with and without a bevel were combined and a statistically significant difference in microleakage between the treatment and control sides of the tooth were found for ultrasonic scaling (32.5%±44.9%, n = 16; p = 0.016) but not sonic toothbrushing (2.5% ± 41.2%, n = 16; p = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling increased microleakage at cementum‐composite interface and there was no difference in microleakage with the use of a bevel. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Piezoelectric sonic scaling around Class V composite restorations with margins in cementum should be avoided. Beveled margins will not reduce the incidence of microleakge resulting from ultrasonic scaling in Class V restorations. Placing the apical margin of the restoration in enamel should be attempted whenever possible to prevent future microleakage. (J Esthet Restor Dent 29:41–48, 2017) John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-09-09 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5292089/ /pubmed/27612323 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12262 Text en © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Goldstein, Ronald E.
Lamba, Suruchi
Lawson, Nathaniel C.
Beck, Preston
Oster, Robert A.
Burgess, John O.
Microleakage around Class V Composite Restorations after Ultrasonic Scaling and Sonic Toothbrushing around their Margin
title Microleakage around Class V Composite Restorations after Ultrasonic Scaling and Sonic Toothbrushing around their Margin
title_full Microleakage around Class V Composite Restorations after Ultrasonic Scaling and Sonic Toothbrushing around their Margin
title_fullStr Microleakage around Class V Composite Restorations after Ultrasonic Scaling and Sonic Toothbrushing around their Margin
title_full_unstemmed Microleakage around Class V Composite Restorations after Ultrasonic Scaling and Sonic Toothbrushing around their Margin
title_short Microleakage around Class V Composite Restorations after Ultrasonic Scaling and Sonic Toothbrushing around their Margin
title_sort microleakage around class v composite restorations after ultrasonic scaling and sonic toothbrushing around their margin
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5292089/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27612323
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12262
work_keys_str_mv AT goldsteinronalde microleakagearoundclassvcompositerestorationsafterultrasonicscalingandsonictoothbrushingaroundtheirmargin
AT lambasuruchi microleakagearoundclassvcompositerestorationsafterultrasonicscalingandsonictoothbrushingaroundtheirmargin
AT lawsonnathanielc microleakagearoundclassvcompositerestorationsafterultrasonicscalingandsonictoothbrushingaroundtheirmargin
AT beckpreston microleakagearoundclassvcompositerestorationsafterultrasonicscalingandsonictoothbrushingaroundtheirmargin
AT osterroberta microleakagearoundclassvcompositerestorationsafterultrasonicscalingandsonictoothbrushingaroundtheirmargin
AT burgessjohno microleakagearoundclassvcompositerestorationsafterultrasonicscalingandsonictoothbrushingaroundtheirmargin