To Compare and Evaluate the Microleakage of Four Different Tooth Coloured Restorative
Materials in Class V Cavities: A Stereomicroscopic Study
Zaryab Momin1 and Rahul Maria2
1Post Graduate Student, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Bhabha College of Dental Sciences, India
2Professor and H.O.D, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Bhabha College of Dental Sciences, India
*Corresponding Author: Zaryab Momin, Post Graduate Student, Department of
Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Bhabha College of Dental Sciences, India.
Received: December 08, 2022; Published: January 06, 2023
A major advancement in the current practice of dentistry is the restoration of the teeth with tooth coloured restorative material. The success and longevity of a dental restoration depends on sealing of the cavity walls as well as the retention to the tooth surface.
Design: Forty caries free human permanent maxillary premolar of comparable dimensions extracted for orthodontic purposes were selected for the study. Standardized class V cavities of length 4mm, depth 2mm, width 2mm mesiodistally were prepared on the buccal aspect of the specimen. Dimensions were standardized by measuring with digital vernier caliper. The prepared specimens were randomly divided into four experimental groups of ten specimens each (n = 10) and the prepared cavities were restored with four different tooth-coloured restorative materials, group-I nanocomposite Filtek Z350XT, group-II Filtek Bulkfill, group III microhybrid Clearfill AP-X, group- IV RMGI Fuji II LC all the specimen were restored and aged artificially. Specimens were sectioned buccolingually through the restoration using diamond disc and examined under stereomicroscope at 30 X magnification to assess the micro leakage.
Results: The present study showed the least microleakage in (group I) nanocomposite filtek z350xt followed by (group II) clear fill AP-X, (group III) filtek bulk fill and (group IV) fuji II LC
Conclusion: Overall FILTEK Z350XT restoration with liner as Beautiful Flow Plus performed better than other three groups with least microleakage
Keywords:Micoleakage; Composite; Restoration
- CV Rekha., et al. “Comparative evaluation of tensile bond strength and microleakage of conventional glass ionomer cement, resin modified glass ionomer cement and compomer: An in vitro study”. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry 3 (2012): 282-287.
- SK Gupta., et al. “Comparative evaluation of microleakage in Class V cavities using various glass ionomer cements: An in vitro study”. Journal of Interdisciplinary Dentistry 3 (2012): 164.
- I Kaplan., et al. “Microleakage of composite resin and glass ionomer cement restorations in retentive and nonretentive cervical cavity preparations”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 4 (1992): 616-623.
- E Eden., et al. “Micro-CT for measuring marginal leakage of Class II resin composite restorations in primary molars prepared in vivo”. American Journal of Dentistry 6 (2008): 393-397.
- S Sooraparaju., et al. “A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Class V Composite Restorations”. International Journal of Dentistry (2014): 685643.
- S Abd El Halim and D Zaki. “Comparative evaluation of microleakage among three different glass ionomer types”. Operative Dentistry 1 (2011): 36-42.
- AH García., et al. “Composite resins. A review of the materials and clinical indications”. Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral y Cirugia Bucal 2 (2006): E215-220.
- Khamverdi Z., et al. “Comparative evaluation of microleakage in class V composite resin restorations using two bulk filled resin composites and one conventional composite (GRANDIO)”. Annals of Dental Specialty (2002).
- Mazumdar P., et al. “Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three different direct restorative materials (silver amalgam, glass ionomer cement, cention N), in Class II restorations using stereomicroscope: An in vitro study”. Indian Journal of Dental Research 2 (2019): 277-281.
- AK Lagisetti., et al. “Evaluation of bioceramics and zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement in repair of furcation perforations: An in vitro study”. Journal of Conservative Dentistry (JCD)2 (2018): 184-189.
- “Review of microleakage evaluation tools”. Journal of International Oral Health (2017).
- P Mali., et al. “Microleakage of restorative materials: an in vitro study”. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry 1 (2006): 15-18.
- S Govil., et al. “A comparative evaluation of micro-leakage of different tooth-colored restorative materials. An in-vitro study”. International Journal of Health and Clinical Research 1 (2016): 22-24.
- A Diwanji., et al. “Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three restorative glass ionomer cements: An in vitro study”. Journal of Natural Science, Biology and Medicine 2 (2014): 373-377.
- E Khodadadi., et al. “Evaluation of microleakage of Ionoseal filling material as a fissure sealant agent”. Caspian Journal of Dental Research 2 (2014): 39-45.
- M Nair., et al. “Comparative evaluation of the bonding efficacy of sixth and seventh generation bonding agents: An In-Vitro study”. Journal of Conservative Dentistry JCD1 (2014): 27-30.
- Horieh Moosavi., et al. “Comparison of resin composite restorations microleakage: An in-vitro study”. Open Journal of Stomatology 3.2 (2013): 6.
- DS Kambale., et al. “Effect of Single Step Adhesives on the Marginal Permeability of Class V Resin Composites - An In Vitro Study”. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences 5 (2014).
- D Dennis and S Lingam. “MICROLEAKAGE EVALUATION AMONG GIOMER, RESIN-MODIFIED GLASS IONOMER CEMENT, AND FLOWABLE COMPOSITE IN CLASS V CAVITIES: AN IN-VITRO STUDY”. International Journal of Clinical Dentistry (2021).