Limits...
Evaluation of Microleakage in Class II Cavities using Packable Composite Restorations with and without use of Liners.

Arora R, Kapur R, Sibal N, Juneja S - Int J Clin Pediatr Dent (2012)

Bottom Line: It was concluded that in class II composite restorations gingival microleakage is more at the dentinal surface than on enamel.The use of a flowable composite and RMGIC, as liners, beneath the packable composite, in class II composite restorations, significantly reduces the microleakage when margins are in dentin, but the reverse is true, when the margins are in enamel.Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012;5(3):178-184.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Assistant Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Government Dental College, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana, India.

ABSTRACT
The advent of the esthetic era and advances in adhesive technology saw the emergence of resin composite materials. But the problem of polymerization shrinkage remained. This was due to the contraction of the resin during curing inducing internal and interfacial stresses at the tooth restoration interface, leading to gap formation and subsequent micro-leakage. A number of techniques and modifications in the material have been proposed to minimize polymerization shrinkage and microleakage. In this study, the hypothesis that the placement of resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) or flowable composite, as liner, beneath the packable composite, on the gingival surface of the tooth [coronal or apical to cementoenamel junction (CEJ)], could reduce the microleakage in class II composite restorations, was tested. Sixty recently extracted noncarious human mandibular molars were used. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups (20 specimens each): Group I (Filtek P60 with RMGIC liner), group II (Filtek P60 with Filtek Z350 liner) and Group III (Filtek P60 without liner). The teeth of each group were further subdivided into two subgroups (equal number of cavities). Subgroup A gingival seat 1 mm occlusal to CEJ on mesial side. Subgroup B gingival seat 1 mm apical to CEJ on distal side. It was concluded that in class II composite restorations gingival microleakage is more at the dentinal surface than on enamel. The use of a flowable composite and RMGIC, as liners, beneath the packable composite, in class II composite restorations, significantly reduces the microleakage when margins are in dentin, but the reverse is true, when the margins are in enamel. How to cite this article: Arora R, Kapur R, Sibal N, Juneja S. Evaluation of Microleakage in Class II Cavities using Packable Composite Restorations with and without use of Liners. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012;5(3):178-184.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Occlusal view of restored tooth with auto matrix
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4155883&req=5

Figure 1: Occlusal view of restored tooth with auto matrix

Mentions: In group II, the specimens were cleaned with water for 30 seconds and dried with absorbent paper for 15 seconds. Acid etching was done by applying the etchant gel on enamel and dentin surfaces for 30 seconds. It was washed with water for 15 seconds and dried with absorbent paper for 15 seconds. Then the first coat of bonding agent was applied to the cavity walls followed by another application after 15 seconds. It was then air dried and cured for 20 seconds as per manufacturer’s instructions. A cellophane automatrix band was adapted to the tooth and a layer of 1 mm thickness of flowable composite was applied on the gingival seat and light cured for 20 seconds. The cavities were filled with packable composite and finished and polished (Fig. 1).


Evaluation of Microleakage in Class II Cavities using Packable Composite Restorations with and without use of Liners.

Arora R, Kapur R, Sibal N, Juneja S - Int J Clin Pediatr Dent (2012)

Occlusal view of restored tooth with auto matrix
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4155883&req=5

Figure 1: Occlusal view of restored tooth with auto matrix
Mentions: In group II, the specimens were cleaned with water for 30 seconds and dried with absorbent paper for 15 seconds. Acid etching was done by applying the etchant gel on enamel and dentin surfaces for 30 seconds. It was washed with water for 15 seconds and dried with absorbent paper for 15 seconds. Then the first coat of bonding agent was applied to the cavity walls followed by another application after 15 seconds. It was then air dried and cured for 20 seconds as per manufacturer’s instructions. A cellophane automatrix band was adapted to the tooth and a layer of 1 mm thickness of flowable composite was applied on the gingival seat and light cured for 20 seconds. The cavities were filled with packable composite and finished and polished (Fig. 1).

Bottom Line: It was concluded that in class II composite restorations gingival microleakage is more at the dentinal surface than on enamel.The use of a flowable composite and RMGIC, as liners, beneath the packable composite, in class II composite restorations, significantly reduces the microleakage when margins are in dentin, but the reverse is true, when the margins are in enamel.Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012;5(3):178-184.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Assistant Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Government Dental College, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana, India.

ABSTRACT
The advent of the esthetic era and advances in adhesive technology saw the emergence of resin composite materials. But the problem of polymerization shrinkage remained. This was due to the contraction of the resin during curing inducing internal and interfacial stresses at the tooth restoration interface, leading to gap formation and subsequent micro-leakage. A number of techniques and modifications in the material have been proposed to minimize polymerization shrinkage and microleakage. In this study, the hypothesis that the placement of resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) or flowable composite, as liner, beneath the packable composite, on the gingival surface of the tooth [coronal or apical to cementoenamel junction (CEJ)], could reduce the microleakage in class II composite restorations, was tested. Sixty recently extracted noncarious human mandibular molars were used. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups (20 specimens each): Group I (Filtek P60 with RMGIC liner), group II (Filtek P60 with Filtek Z350 liner) and Group III (Filtek P60 without liner). The teeth of each group were further subdivided into two subgroups (equal number of cavities). Subgroup A gingival seat 1 mm occlusal to CEJ on mesial side. Subgroup B gingival seat 1 mm apical to CEJ on distal side. It was concluded that in class II composite restorations gingival microleakage is more at the dentinal surface than on enamel. The use of a flowable composite and RMGIC, as liners, beneath the packable composite, in class II composite restorations, significantly reduces the microleakage when margins are in dentin, but the reverse is true, when the margins are in enamel. How to cite this article: Arora R, Kapur R, Sibal N, Juneja S. Evaluation of Microleakage in Class II Cavities using Packable Composite Restorations with and without use of Liners. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012;5(3):178-184.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus