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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pawar, Madhura, Saleem Agwan, Muhammad Atif, Ghani, Bushra, Khatri, Megha, Bopache, Pooja, Aziz, Mian Salman
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
_version_ 1784618121007464448
author Pawar, Madhura
Saleem Agwan, Muhammad Atif
Ghani, Bushra
Khatri, Megha
Bopache, Pooja
Aziz, Mian Salman
author_facet Pawar, Madhura
Saleem Agwan, Muhammad Atif
Ghani, Bushra
Khatri, Megha
Bopache, Pooja
Aziz, Mian Salman
author_sort Pawar, Madhura
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8686980
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86869802022-01-10 Evaluation of Class II Restoration Microleakage with Various Restorative Materials: A Comparative In vitro Study Pawar, Madhura Saleem Agwan, Muhammad Atif Ghani, Bushra Khatri, Megha Bopache, Pooja Aziz, Mian Salman J Pharm Bioallied Sci Original Article 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. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021-11 2021-11-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8686980/ /pubmed/35017958 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_359_21 Text en Copyright: © 2021 Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences https://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
Pawar, Madhura
Saleem Agwan, Muhammad Atif
Ghani, Bushra
Khatri, Megha
Bopache, Pooja
Aziz, Mian Salman
Evaluation of Class II Restoration Microleakage with Various Restorative Materials: A Comparative In vitro Study
title Evaluation of Class II Restoration Microleakage with Various Restorative Materials: A Comparative In vitro Study
title_full Evaluation of Class II Restoration Microleakage with Various Restorative Materials: A Comparative In vitro Study
title_fullStr Evaluation of Class II Restoration Microleakage with Various Restorative Materials: A Comparative In vitro Study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Class II Restoration Microleakage with Various Restorative Materials: A Comparative In vitro Study
title_short Evaluation of Class II Restoration Microleakage with Various Restorative Materials: A Comparative In vitro Study
title_sort evaluation of class ii restoration microleakage with various restorative materials: a comparative in vitro study
topic Original Article
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT pawarmadhura evaluationofclassiirestorationmicroleakagewithvariousrestorativematerialsacomparativeinvitrostudy
AT saleemagwanmuhammadatif evaluationofclassiirestorationmicroleakagewithvariousrestorativematerialsacomparativeinvitrostudy
AT ghanibushra evaluationofclassiirestorationmicroleakagewithvariousrestorativematerialsacomparativeinvitrostudy
AT khatrimegha evaluationofclassiirestorationmicroleakagewithvariousrestorativematerialsacomparativeinvitrostudy
AT bopachepooja evaluationofclassiirestorationmicroleakagewithvariousrestorativematerialsacomparativeinvitrostudy
AT azizmiansalman evaluationofclassiirestorationmicroleakagewithvariousrestorativematerialsacomparativeinvitrostudy