Cargando…
Evaluation of Class II Restoration Microleakage with Various Restorative Materials: A Comparative In vitro Study
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The quest for a suitable esthetic material for tooth restoration has resulted in significant advancements in both material properties and application technique. Composites and acid-etch procedures are two significant advancements in esthetic restorative dentistry. Further...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8686980/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35017958 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_359_21 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The quest for a suitable esthetic material for tooth restoration has resulted in significant advancements in both material properties and application technique. Composites and acid-etch procedures are two significant advancements in esthetic restorative dentistry. Further research has strengthened composites' overall wear resistance and strength, but the problem of polymerization shrinkage has persisted. To reduce polymerization shrinkage and microleakage, a variety of techniques and material modifications have been suggested. The marginal leakage of amalgam, packable composite, flowable composite with packable composite, and high-viscosity traditional glass ionomer cement (GIC) was compared in this analysis to test the mentioned hypothesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We chose 60 freshly extracted teeth and divided them into four classes of 15 teeth each. Class II cavities were prepared in a standardized manner. Group I was treated with amalgam, Group II with packable composite (GC G-aenial Posterior), Group III with flowable composite (G-aenial Universal Flo) as a liner and then restored with packable composite (GC G-aenial Posterior), and Group IV with high-viscosity traditional GIC (EQUI FORTE FILL). After that, the restorations were put through a thermocycling process. The specimens were soaked in 0.5% methylene blue dye before being cut into mesiodistal sections to assess microleakage at the gingival margin. After that, the parts were examined under a stereomicroscope. The degree of dye penetration was used to determine the score. RESULTS: There was no microleakage in the control group, and the gap between the control and experimental groups was statistically significant (P = 0.017). CONCLUSION: The glass hybrid restorative device had less gingival microleakage than the resin-based restorative material, indicating that it has a better sealing capacity. Clinical acceptability of glass hybrid restorative systems, on the other hand, must be confirmed with a larger sample size and in vivo trials. |
---|