The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 18 , ISSUE 6 ( June, 2017 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Influence of Hand Instrumentation and Ultrasonic Scaling on the Microleakage of various Cervical Restorations: An in vitro Study

Mehrdad Barekatain, Bita Rohani, Shirin Z Farhad, Navid Haghayegh

Citation Information : Barekatain M, Rohani B, Farhad SZ, Haghayegh N. Influence of Hand Instrumentation and Ultrasonic Scaling on the Microleakage of various Cervical Restorations: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017; 18 (6):437-442.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2061

Published Online: 01-06-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction

In cervical lesions, various restorative materials can be inserted, which can be affected by the application of periodontal scalers. This study evaluated and compared the marginal seal of class V glass ionomer, composite resin, and amalgam restorations after subjecting them to hand instrumentation and ultrasonic scaling.

Materials and methods

In this experimental study, 30 sound human first premolars were selected. In each tooth, buccal and lingual cavities (4 mm mesiodistal width, 3 mm occlusogingival height, and 2 mm depth) were made. The teeth were randomly assigned to three groups of 10 teeth: (1) Glass ionomer group, (2) composite group, and (3) amalgam group. Teeth were subjected to thermocycling procedure for 1,000 cycles between 5 and 55°C water baths and a 1-minute dwell time. Then, each group was randomly subdivided: (1) Margins of 30 restorations were exposed to hand instrumentation procedures by applying 10 working strokes, (2) margins of 30 restorations were exposed to a periodontal tip mounted on a piezoelectric ultrasonic handpiece working at 25 kHz for 10 seconds. The specimens were serially sectioned mesiodistally. Each section was examined under a stereomicroscope. The extent of microleakage was ranked using a 0 to 4 scale at both occlusal and cervical margins of the restorations. Data were analyzed initially using the Kruskal–Wallis test, followed by multiple comparisons using the Mann–Whitney and Wilcoxon test.

Results

The type of restorative material had a significant influence on dye penetration, whether in the enamel margin or in dentinal margin (p < 0.001). The microleakage of glass ionomer group was the highest. No statistical differences were found in dye penetration between scaling groups (hand instrumentation and ultrasonic scaling) (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Type of restorative material had a significant influence on microleakage. No statistical differences were found in dye penetration between scaling groups.

Clinical significance

The microleakage of glass ionomer restoration is greater than amalgam and composite restorations after subjecting them to hand instrumentation and ultrasonic scaling.

How to cite this article

Rohani B, Barekatain M, Farhad SZ, Haghayegh N. Influence of Hand Instrumentation and Ultrasonic Scaling on the Microleakage of various Cervical Restorations: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(6):437-442.


PDF Share
  1. Dental plaque as a biofilm. J Ind Microbiol 1995 Sep;15(3):169-175.
  2. The comparison of the effects of three types of piezoelectric ultrasonic tips and air polishing system on the filling materials: an in vitro study. Int J Dent Hyg 2007 Nov;5(4):205-210.
  3. Antimicrobial agents used in the control of periodontal biofilms: effective adjuncts to mechanical plaque control? Braz Oral Res 2009 Jun;23(Suppl 1):39-48.
  4. Experimental gingivitis in man. J Periodontol 1965 May-Jun;36(3):177-187.
  5. Position paper: sonic and ultrasonic scalers in periodontics. Research, Science and Therapy Committee of the American Academy of Periodontology. J Periodontol 2000 Nov;71(11):1792-1801.
  6. A systematic review of efficacy of machine-driven and manual subgingival debridement in the treatment of chronic periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol 2002;29(Suppl 3):72-81.
  7. Ultrasonics in periodontics. J Clin Periodontol 1974 Dec;1(4):206-213.
  8. Effects of nonsurgical periodontal therapy on hard and soft tissues. Periodontology 2000 2004 Aug;36(1):121-145.
  9. A comparison of root surface instrumentation using two piezoelectric ultrasonic scalers and a hand scaler in vivo. J Periodontal Res 2007 Feb;42(1):90-95.
  10. Comparative analysis between a modified ultrasonic tip and hand instruments on clinical parameters of periodontal disease. J Periodontol 1993 Aug;64(8):694-700.
  11. Evaluation of root surface microtopography following the use of four instrumentation systems by confocal microscopy and scanning electron microscopy: an in vitro study. J Periodontal Res 2012 Oct;47(5):608-615.
  12. Hand and ultrasonic instrumentation in the treatment of chronic periodontitis after supragingival plaque control. Braz Oral Res 2005 Jan-Mar;19(1):41-46.
  13. Effect of ultrasonic instrumentation on the bond strength of crowns cemented with zinc phosphate cement to natural teeth. An in vitro study. Braz Oral Res 2008 Jul-Sep;22(1):270-274.
  14. Effects of sonic and ultrasonic scaling on the surface roughness of tooth-colored restorative materials for cervical lesions. Oper Dent 2007 May-Jun;32(3):273-278.
  15. Marginal leakage of visible light-cured glass ionomer restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 1993 Jun;69(6):561-563.
  16. Two-year study on the clinical performance of the glass ionomer-based restorative system EQUIA. J Minimum Interv Dent 2013 Jan;6(6):81-86.
  17. Glass-ionomer cement restorative materials: a sticky subject? Aust Dent J 2011 Jun;56(Suppl 1):23-30.
  18. Clinical performance of viscous glass ionomer cement in posterior cavities over two years. Int J Dent 2009 Dec;2009:781462.
  19. Mechanical behavior of a bi-layer glass ionomer. Dent Mater 2013 Oct;29(10):1020-1025.
  20. Buonocore memorial lecture. Evaluation of clinical performance for posterior composite resins and dentin adhesives. Oper Dent 1987 Spring;12(2):53-78.
  21. The surface finish of composite resin restorative materials. Br Dent J 1984 Nov;157(10):360-364.
  22. Surface roughness and marginal behaviour of experimental and commercial composites: an in vitro study. J Oral Rehabil 1984 Sep;11(5):499-509.
  23. Direct composite restorative materials. Dent Clin North Am 2007 Jul;51(3):659-675, vii.
  24. Properties of silorane-based dental resins and composites containing a stress-reducing monomer. Dent Mater 2007 Aug;23(8):1011-1017.
  25. Microleakage evaluation of a new low-shrinkage composite restorative material. Oper Dent 2006 Nov-Dec;31(6):670-676.
  26. Silorane-based composite: depth of cure, surface hardness, degree of conversion, and cervical microleakage in Class II cavities. J Esthet Restor Dent 2011 Oct;23(5):324-335.
  27. Microleakage of silorane-and methacrylate-based Class V composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig 2012 Aug;16(4):1117-1124.
  28. In vitro performance of Class I and II composite restorations: a literature review on nondestructive laboratory trials–part II. Oper Dent 2013 Sep-Oct;38(5):E182-E200.
  29. In vivo and in vitro evaluations of microleakage around Class I amalgam and composite restorations. Oper Dent 2010 Nov-Dec;35(6):641-648.
  30. Microleakage of amalgam cavity treatment systems: an in vitro evaluation. Am J Dent 2002 Aug;15(4):262-267.
  31. Effect of loading on the microtensile bond strength and microleakage of a self-etching and etch-and-rinse adhesive in direct Class II MOD composite restorations in vitro. Dent Mater J 2012 Nov;31(6):924-932.
  32. Systematic reviews: I. The correlation between laboratory tests on marginal quality and bond strength. II. The correlation between marginal quality and clinical outcome. J Adhes Dent 2007 Feb;9(Suppl 1):77-106.
  33. Comparison of bonding efficacy of an all-in-one adhesive with a self-etching primer system. Eur J Oral Sci 2004 Jun;112(3):286-292.
  34. Effects of ultrasonic instrumentation on microleakage in composite restorations with glass ionomer liners. J Oral Rehabil 1992 Jan;19(1):21-29.
  35. Microleakage comparison of polyacid composite resin restorations and resin modified glass ionomer before and after ultrasonic scaling. J Shahid Sadoughi Univ Med Sci 2006 Fall;14(3):56-61.
  36. Surface alteration of composite resins after curette, ultrasonic, and sonic instrumentation: an in vitro study. Quintessence Int 1990 May;21(5):381-389.
  37. Two-year clinical performance of a polyacid-modified resin composite and a resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative material. Oper Dent 2001 Jan-Feb;26(1):12-16.
  38. Water storage effect on the marginal seal of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations. Oper Dent 1999;24(5):272-278.
  39. A comparison on the effects of ultrasonic scaling on the microleakage of Class V composite resin and glass ionomer cement restorations. J Dent Med 2002 Dec;15(1):5-11.
  40. Curing contraction of composites and glass-ionomer cements. J Prosthet Dent 1988 Mar;59(3):297-300.
  41. The influence of water sorption on the development of setting shrinkage stress in traditional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater 1995 May;11(3):186-190.
  42. Long-term monitoring of microleakage of different amalgams with different liners. J Prosthet Dent 2005 Jun;93(6):571-576.
  43. Corrosion sealing of amalgam restorations in vitro. Oper Dent 2009 May-Jun;34(3):312-320.
  44. ; Powers, J. Craig's restorative dental materials. Philadelphia (PA): Mosby, Elsevier; 2012. p. 208.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.