Cargando…
Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Bioactive, Ormocer, and Conventional GIC Restorative Materials in Primary Molars: An In Vitro Study Microleakage of Three Restorative Materials
This in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the microleakage of bioactive, ormocer, and conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorative materials in primary molars. In this study, class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surface of 75 noncarious extracted primary molars. The teeth were...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8933070/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35310459 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/7932930 |
_version_ | 1784671563169136640 |
---|---|
author | Jain, Khushboo Katge, Farhin Poojari, Manohar Shetty, Shilpa Patil, Devendra Ghadge, Sanjana |
author_facet | Jain, Khushboo Katge, Farhin Poojari, Manohar Shetty, Shilpa Patil, Devendra Ghadge, Sanjana |
author_sort | Jain, Khushboo |
collection | PubMed |
description | This in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the microleakage of bioactive, ormocer, and conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorative materials in primary molars. In this study, class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surface of 75 noncarious extracted primary molars. The teeth were then restored as per the groups assigned. Group A, group B, and group C used bioactive restorative materials, ormocer restorative materials, and conventional GIC restorative materials for restorations, respectively. The teeth were then thermocycled and subjected to microleakage analysis via dye penetration. The microleakage scores were compared for differences using the Kruskal–Wallis test. This was followed by multiple pairwise comparisons using the Dunn test. All testing was carried out using a ‘p' value of <0.05. The percentage of samples showing microleakage score 0 depicting no dye penetration was highest for group A (56%) followed by group C (44%) and group B (12%). Statistical analysis revealed highest microleakage with group B, which was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Microleakage was evident in all the materials tested. The lowest microleakage was seen with bioactive restorative material. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8933070 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Hindawi |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89330702022-03-19 Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Bioactive, Ormocer, and Conventional GIC Restorative Materials in Primary Molars: An In Vitro Study Microleakage of Three Restorative Materials Jain, Khushboo Katge, Farhin Poojari, Manohar Shetty, Shilpa Patil, Devendra Ghadge, Sanjana Int J Dent Research Article This in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the microleakage of bioactive, ormocer, and conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorative materials in primary molars. In this study, class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surface of 75 noncarious extracted primary molars. The teeth were then restored as per the groups assigned. Group A, group B, and group C used bioactive restorative materials, ormocer restorative materials, and conventional GIC restorative materials for restorations, respectively. The teeth were then thermocycled and subjected to microleakage analysis via dye penetration. The microleakage scores were compared for differences using the Kruskal–Wallis test. This was followed by multiple pairwise comparisons using the Dunn test. All testing was carried out using a ‘p' value of <0.05. The percentage of samples showing microleakage score 0 depicting no dye penetration was highest for group A (56%) followed by group C (44%) and group B (12%). Statistical analysis revealed highest microleakage with group B, which was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Microleakage was evident in all the materials tested. The lowest microleakage was seen with bioactive restorative material. Hindawi 2022-03-11 /pmc/articles/PMC8933070/ /pubmed/35310459 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/7932930 Text en Copyright © 2022 Khushboo Jain et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Jain, Khushboo Katge, Farhin Poojari, Manohar Shetty, Shilpa Patil, Devendra Ghadge, Sanjana Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Bioactive, Ormocer, and Conventional GIC Restorative Materials in Primary Molars: An In Vitro Study Microleakage of Three Restorative Materials |
title | Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Bioactive, Ormocer, and Conventional GIC Restorative Materials in Primary Molars: An In Vitro Study Microleakage of Three Restorative Materials |
title_full | Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Bioactive, Ormocer, and Conventional GIC Restorative Materials in Primary Molars: An In Vitro Study Microleakage of Three Restorative Materials |
title_fullStr | Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Bioactive, Ormocer, and Conventional GIC Restorative Materials in Primary Molars: An In Vitro Study Microleakage of Three Restorative Materials |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Bioactive, Ormocer, and Conventional GIC Restorative Materials in Primary Molars: An In Vitro Study Microleakage of Three Restorative Materials |
title_short | Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Bioactive, Ormocer, and Conventional GIC Restorative Materials in Primary Molars: An In Vitro Study Microleakage of Three Restorative Materials |
title_sort | comparative evaluation of microleakage of bioactive, ormocer, and conventional gic restorative materials in primary molars: an in vitro study microleakage of three restorative materials |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8933070/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35310459 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/7932930 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT jainkhushboo comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageofbioactiveormocerandconventionalgicrestorativematerialsinprimarymolarsaninvitrostudymicroleakageofthreerestorativematerials AT katgefarhin comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageofbioactiveormocerandconventionalgicrestorativematerialsinprimarymolarsaninvitrostudymicroleakageofthreerestorativematerials AT poojarimanohar comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageofbioactiveormocerandconventionalgicrestorativematerialsinprimarymolarsaninvitrostudymicroleakageofthreerestorativematerials AT shettyshilpa comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageofbioactiveormocerandconventionalgicrestorativematerialsinprimarymolarsaninvitrostudymicroleakageofthreerestorativematerials AT patildevendra comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageofbioactiveormocerandconventionalgicrestorativematerialsinprimarymolarsaninvitrostudymicroleakageofthreerestorativematerials AT ghadgesanjana comparativeevaluationofmicroleakageofbioactiveormocerandconventionalgicrestorativematerialsinprimarymolarsaninvitrostudymicroleakageofthreerestorativematerials |