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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jain, Khushboo, Katge, Farhin, Poojari, Manohar, Shetty, Shilpa, Patil, Devendra, Ghadge, Sanjana
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