Cargando…

A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage among Newer Composite Materials: An in vitro Study

BACKGROUND: Good adhesive bonding of restorative materials to cavity walls minimizing microleakage is an important criterion for the performance and longevity of a restoration in the oral cavity. The present study is aimed to compare the microleakage among newer composite materials. MATERIALS AND ME...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sudhapalli, Sruthi Keerthi, Sudhapalli, Swathi, Razdan, Rahul Anand, Singh, Virendra, Bhasin, Abhilasha
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6868631/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31772468
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_621_18
_version_ 1783472307219464192
author Sudhapalli, Sruthi Keerthi
Sudhapalli, Swathi
Razdan, Rahul Anand
Singh, Virendra
Bhasin, Abhilasha
author_facet Sudhapalli, Sruthi Keerthi
Sudhapalli, Swathi
Razdan, Rahul Anand
Singh, Virendra
Bhasin, Abhilasha
author_sort Sudhapalli, Sruthi Keerthi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Good adhesive bonding of restorative materials to cavity walls minimizing microleakage is an important criterion for the performance and longevity of a restoration in the oral cavity. The present study is aimed to compare the microleakage among newer composite materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five extracted healthy premolars were collected; standard Class II cavities were prepared. They were randomly divided into three groups of 15 teeth each. The groups were made based on the different composite restorative materials used for restoration. Group A consisted of conventional microfilled composite resin restorations, and Group B was posterior nanocomposite resin. Group C was restored using ORMOCER – Admira. After completion of restorations, all teeth were subjected to thermocycling at 5° C, 37° C, and 55° C for 250 cycles. Later, all samples were immersed into 50% silver nitrate dye group wise for for 4 hours (h), and teeth were sectioned buccolingually. Sectioned teeth were observed under a stereomicroscope for the evaluation of microleakage. ANOVA and unpaired t-tests were used for statistical analysis. The significance level was at set P < 0.001. RESULTS: The results of this study showed that Group C (ORMOCER – Admira) presented with the least microleakage followed by Group B (Tetric N-Ceram) followed by Group A (Tetric Ceram). CONCLUSIONS: Overall ORMOCER – Admira performed better than the other two composite materials with the least microleakage.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6868631
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68686312019-11-26 A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage among Newer Composite Materials: An in vitro Study Sudhapalli, Sruthi Keerthi Sudhapalli, Swathi Razdan, Rahul Anand Singh, Virendra Bhasin, Abhilasha Contemp Clin Dent Original Article BACKGROUND: Good adhesive bonding of restorative materials to cavity walls minimizing microleakage is an important criterion for the performance and longevity of a restoration in the oral cavity. The present study is aimed to compare the microleakage among newer composite materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five extracted healthy premolars were collected; standard Class II cavities were prepared. They were randomly divided into three groups of 15 teeth each. The groups were made based on the different composite restorative materials used for restoration. Group A consisted of conventional microfilled composite resin restorations, and Group B was posterior nanocomposite resin. Group C was restored using ORMOCER – Admira. After completion of restorations, all teeth were subjected to thermocycling at 5° C, 37° C, and 55° C for 250 cycles. Later, all samples were immersed into 50% silver nitrate dye group wise for for 4 hours (h), and teeth were sectioned buccolingually. Sectioned teeth were observed under a stereomicroscope for the evaluation of microleakage. ANOVA and unpaired t-tests were used for statistical analysis. The significance level was at set P < 0.001. RESULTS: The results of this study showed that Group C (ORMOCER – Admira) presented with the least microleakage followed by Group B (Tetric N-Ceram) followed by Group A (Tetric Ceram). CONCLUSIONS: Overall ORMOCER – Admira performed better than the other two composite materials with the least microleakage. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6868631/ /pubmed/31772468 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_621_18 Text en Copyright: © 2019 Contemporary Clinical Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Sudhapalli, Sruthi Keerthi
Sudhapalli, Swathi
Razdan, Rahul Anand
Singh, Virendra
Bhasin, Abhilasha
A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage among Newer Composite Materials: An in vitro Study
title A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage among Newer Composite Materials: An in vitro Study
title_full A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage among Newer Composite Materials: An in vitro Study
title_fullStr A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage among Newer Composite Materials: An in vitro Study
title_full_unstemmed A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage among Newer Composite Materials: An in vitro Study
title_short A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage among Newer Composite Materials: An in vitro Study
title_sort comparative evaluation of microleakage among newer composite materials: an in vitro study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6868631/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31772468
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_621_18
work_keys_str_mv AT sudhapallisruthikeerthi acomparativeevaluationofmicroleakageamongnewercompositematerialsaninvitrostudy
AT sudhapalliswathi acomparativeevaluationofmicroleakageamongnewercompositematerialsaninvitrostudy
AT razdanrahulanand acomparativeevaluationofmicroleakageamongnewercompositematerialsaninvitrostudy
AT singhvirendra acomparativeevaluationofmicroleakageamongnewercompositematerialsaninvitrostudy
AT bhasinabhilasha acomparativeevaluationofmicroleakageamongnewercompositematerialsaninvitrostudy
AT sudhapallisruthikeerthi comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageamongnewercompositematerialsaninvitrostudy
AT sudhapalliswathi comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageamongnewercompositematerialsaninvitrostudy
AT razdanrahulanand comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageamongnewercompositematerialsaninvitrostudy
AT singhvirendra comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageamongnewercompositematerialsaninvitrostudy
AT bhasinabhilasha comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageamongnewercompositematerialsaninvitrostudy