Limits...
Evaluation of Microleakage and Marginal Ridge Fracture Resistance of Primary Molars Restored with Three Restorative Materials: A Comparative in vitro Study.

Yeolekar TS, Chowdhary NR, Mukunda KS, Kiran NK - Int J Clin Pediatr Dent (2015)

Bottom Line: Composite restorations are popular because of their superior esthetics and acceptable clinical performance.Polymerization shrinkage results in volumetric contraction, leading to deformation of the cusps, microleakage, decrease of marginal adaptation, enamel micro-cracks and postoperative sensitivity.It was concluded that low shrink silorane based composite resin showed the least amount of microleakage, whereas compomer showed the highest microleakage.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Postgraduate Student, Department of Pedodontics, Sri Siddhartha Dental College and Hospital, Tumkur, Karnataka, India.

ABSTRACT
Composite restorations are popular because of their superior esthetics and acceptable clinical performance. But shrinkage is still a drawback. Polymerization shrinkage results in volumetric contraction, leading to deformation of the cusps, microleakage, decrease of marginal adaptation, enamel micro-cracks and postoperative sensitivity. A new class of ring opening resin composite based on silorane chemistry has been introduced with claims of less than 1% shrinkage during polymerization. The present study was conducted to evaluate and compare the ability of low shrink silorane based material, a packable composite and a compomer to resist microleakage in class II restorations on primary molars and evaluate marginal ridge fracture resistance of these materials. Sixty human primary molars were selected. Class II cavities were prepared and the teeth were divided into three groups of twenty each. Groups were as follows group I: low shrink composite resin (Filtek P90). Group II: packable composite (Filtek P60) and Group III: compomer (Compoglass F). Half of the teeth were used for microleakage and the rest for marginal ridge fracture resistance. For microleakage testing, dye penetration method was used with 1% methylene blue dye. Followed by evaluation and grading under stereomicroscope at 10* magnification. Fracture resistance was tested with universal testing machine. It was concluded that low shrink silorane based composite resin showed the least amount of microleakage, whereas compomer showed the highest microleakage. Packable composite resisted fracture of marginal ridge better than other composite resins. Marginal ridge fracture resistance of packable composite was comparable to the intact side. How to cite this article: Yeolekar TS, Chowdhary NR, Mukunda KS, Kiran NK. Evaluation of Microleakage and Marginal Ridge Fracture Resistance of Primary Molars Restored with Three Restorative Materials: A Comparative in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015;8(2):108-113.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Cavity preparation
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4562042&req=5

Figure 1: Cavity preparation

Mentions: Class II cavities were prepared and teeth were divided into three groups of twenty each (Fig. 1). Class II cavity was prepared by removing all carious tooth structure and undermined enamel using diamond bur (Mani DIA-BUR ex-41) in contra angled airotar handpiece (NSK, Japan) with water coolant. Medium sized cavites of approximately 4 mm mesiodistally from the proximal surface of primary molars were made. The isthmus of cavity was approximately 2/3rd of buccolingual width, using inter-cuspal distance as reference. The bur was replaced after every five preparations. Teeth were divided into three groups, group I consisted of teeth restored with low shrink composite resin (Filtek P90) (3M ESPE,MN, USA). Group II consisted of teeth restored with packable composite (Filtek P60) (3M ESPE,MN, USA) and group III consisted of teeth restored with compomer Compoglass F (Ivoclar Vivadent).


Evaluation of Microleakage and Marginal Ridge Fracture Resistance of Primary Molars Restored with Three Restorative Materials: A Comparative in vitro Study.

Yeolekar TS, Chowdhary NR, Mukunda KS, Kiran NK - Int J Clin Pediatr Dent (2015)

Cavity preparation
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4562042&req=5

Figure 1: Cavity preparation
Mentions: Class II cavities were prepared and teeth were divided into three groups of twenty each (Fig. 1). Class II cavity was prepared by removing all carious tooth structure and undermined enamel using diamond bur (Mani DIA-BUR ex-41) in contra angled airotar handpiece (NSK, Japan) with water coolant. Medium sized cavites of approximately 4 mm mesiodistally from the proximal surface of primary molars were made. The isthmus of cavity was approximately 2/3rd of buccolingual width, using inter-cuspal distance as reference. The bur was replaced after every five preparations. Teeth were divided into three groups, group I consisted of teeth restored with low shrink composite resin (Filtek P90) (3M ESPE,MN, USA). Group II consisted of teeth restored with packable composite (Filtek P60) (3M ESPE,MN, USA) and group III consisted of teeth restored with compomer Compoglass F (Ivoclar Vivadent).

Bottom Line: Composite restorations are popular because of their superior esthetics and acceptable clinical performance.Polymerization shrinkage results in volumetric contraction, leading to deformation of the cusps, microleakage, decrease of marginal adaptation, enamel micro-cracks and postoperative sensitivity.It was concluded that low shrink silorane based composite resin showed the least amount of microleakage, whereas compomer showed the highest microleakage.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Postgraduate Student, Department of Pedodontics, Sri Siddhartha Dental College and Hospital, Tumkur, Karnataka, India.

ABSTRACT
Composite restorations are popular because of their superior esthetics and acceptable clinical performance. But shrinkage is still a drawback. Polymerization shrinkage results in volumetric contraction, leading to deformation of the cusps, microleakage, decrease of marginal adaptation, enamel micro-cracks and postoperative sensitivity. A new class of ring opening resin composite based on silorane chemistry has been introduced with claims of less than 1% shrinkage during polymerization. The present study was conducted to evaluate and compare the ability of low shrink silorane based material, a packable composite and a compomer to resist microleakage in class II restorations on primary molars and evaluate marginal ridge fracture resistance of these materials. Sixty human primary molars were selected. Class II cavities were prepared and the teeth were divided into three groups of twenty each. Groups were as follows group I: low shrink composite resin (Filtek P90). Group II: packable composite (Filtek P60) and Group III: compomer (Compoglass F). Half of the teeth were used for microleakage and the rest for marginal ridge fracture resistance. For microleakage testing, dye penetration method was used with 1% methylene blue dye. Followed by evaluation and grading under stereomicroscope at 10* magnification. Fracture resistance was tested with universal testing machine. It was concluded that low shrink silorane based composite resin showed the least amount of microleakage, whereas compomer showed the highest microleakage. Packable composite resisted fracture of marginal ridge better than other composite resins. Marginal ridge fracture resistance of packable composite was comparable to the intact side. How to cite this article: Yeolekar TS, Chowdhary NR, Mukunda KS, Kiran NK. Evaluation of Microleakage and Marginal Ridge Fracture Resistance of Primary Molars Restored with Three Restorative Materials: A Comparative in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015;8(2):108-113.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus