Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations Using Three Bulk-fill Composites with or without Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement Liner: A Stereomicroscopic Study.
Vijay Amarnath C Mundaragi, Nandini T Niranjan, Kusuma S Chandrashekhar, Dhanu G Rao, Thimmanagowda N Patil, Suvarna C Chavan
{"title":"Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations Using Three Bulk-fill Composites with or without Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement Liner: A Stereomicroscopic Study.","authors":"Vijay Amarnath C Mundaragi, Nandini T Niranjan, Kusuma S Chandrashekhar, Dhanu G Rao, Thimmanagowda N Patil, Suvarna C Chavan","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2957","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the microleakage of three bulk-fill composite resins with or without resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) liner.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 30 maxillary human 1st premolar teeth were selected. Two box preparations were made on the mesial and distal sides. Teeth were randomly divided into three groups of 10 teeth each. RMGIC liner with 1 mm thick were applied to the mesial box. The specimens were divided into three groups according to the type of bulk-fill composites used and restoration of the cavities were done according to manufacturer instructions and light cured. Finishing and polishing were done and stored for 1 week in distilled water at 37°C. Thermocycling was then performed in a thermocycling unit. The specimens were then immersed in 0.5% methylene blue for 8 hours at 37°C. All the specimens were sectioned longitudinally in a mesiodistal direction and analyzed under 20× magnification in a stereomicroscope. The degree of dye penetration was scored.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Subgroup M showed comparatively less microleakage compared to subgroup D in all the groups which was statistically significant. When microleakage between the study group on mesial and distal sides was compared, group smart dentin replacement (SDR)-M showed less microleakage compared to group F-M and this difference was statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RMGIC is the recommended liner beneath the bulk-fill composites in class II cavities and SureFil SDR bulk-fill flowable can be the recommended composite resin for class II restorations.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Bulk-fill composite is a time-saving material as it eliminates the incremental placement. RMGIC is always recommended beneath bulk-fill composites. SDR bulk-fill is the recommended composite restoration.</p><p><strong>How to cite this article: </strong>Mundaragi VAC, Niranjan NT, Chandrashekhar KS, <i>et al.</i> Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations Using Three Bulk-fill Composites with or without Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement Liner: A Stereomicroscopic Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024;17(10):1146-1152.</p>","PeriodicalId":36045,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry","volume":"17 10","pages":"1146-1152"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11617442/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2957","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: To compare the microleakage of three bulk-fill composite resins with or without resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) liner.
Materials and methods: A total of 30 maxillary human 1st premolar teeth were selected. Two box preparations were made on the mesial and distal sides. Teeth were randomly divided into three groups of 10 teeth each. RMGIC liner with 1 mm thick were applied to the mesial box. The specimens were divided into three groups according to the type of bulk-fill composites used and restoration of the cavities were done according to manufacturer instructions and light cured. Finishing and polishing were done and stored for 1 week in distilled water at 37°C. Thermocycling was then performed in a thermocycling unit. The specimens were then immersed in 0.5% methylene blue for 8 hours at 37°C. All the specimens were sectioned longitudinally in a mesiodistal direction and analyzed under 20× magnification in a stereomicroscope. The degree of dye penetration was scored.
Results: Subgroup M showed comparatively less microleakage compared to subgroup D in all the groups which was statistically significant. When microleakage between the study group on mesial and distal sides was compared, group smart dentin replacement (SDR)-M showed less microleakage compared to group F-M and this difference was statistically significant.
Conclusion: RMGIC is the recommended liner beneath the bulk-fill composites in class II cavities and SureFil SDR bulk-fill flowable can be the recommended composite resin for class II restorations.
Clinical significance: Bulk-fill composite is a time-saving material as it eliminates the incremental placement. RMGIC is always recommended beneath bulk-fill composites. SDR bulk-fill is the recommended composite restoration.
How to cite this article: Mundaragi VAC, Niranjan NT, Chandrashekhar KS, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations Using Three Bulk-fill Composites with or without Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement Liner: A Stereomicroscopic Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024;17(10):1146-1152.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
