In vitro Evaluation and Comparison of Microleakage of Two Restorative Composite Resins in Class II Situations using Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy
Ajay K Gupta, Bibhu D Nanda, Pallavi Sharma, Munmun Moudgil
Confocal laser scanning microscopy, Microleakage, Rhodamine B, SonicFill Bulk Fill composite, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill composite
Citation Information :
Gupta AK, Nanda BD, Sharma P, Moudgil M. In vitro Evaluation and Comparison of Microleakage of Two Restorative Composite Resins in Class II Situations using Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (9):1100-1104.
Aim: The placement of composite in teeth is not an easy task and it poses many challenges. Microleakage is one of the factors that affects the success of any composite restoration. It influences the longevity of dental restorations. The present study was aimed to evaluate and compare microleakage of two restorative composites resins in class II cavities using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM).
Materials and methods: This was an in vitro study, which included 20 permanent mandibular first molar. On each tooth, 40 class II cavities were prepared with a carbide bur. The teeth were then randomly divided into two groups of 10 each. Group I included teeth in which SonicFill Bulk Fill composite was used. Group II included teeth in which Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill composite was used. The microleakage was measured using confocal microscopy at 10× magnification in the fluorescent mode by a scoring system
Results: Estimation was done at cervical and occlusal levels, wherein group I included 10 teeth which were restored with SonicFill Bulk Fill composite and group II included 10 teeth which were restored with Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill composite. Microleakage was quantified on scoring basis, which was consecutively based on the dye penetration at different levels. Data thus obtained statistically revealed that microleakage was comparatively more in group II as compared with group I. In addition, it was somewhat similar on both cervical as well as occlusal regions. The difference was significant (p = 0.05). Comparison was also done at cervical and occlusal levels using Wilcoxon signedrank test, which showed significant levels of differences (p > 0.05).
Conclusion: There is more microleakage in Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill composite as compared with SonicFill Bulk Fill composite.
Clinical significance: No material seems to totally eliminate microleakage in class II situations with gingival margin ended in dentine. However, CLSM is a useful tool in microleakage evaluation that could be used successfully to estimate the severity of microbial penetrations and material of choice as well.
Ben-Amar A, Slutzky H, Matalon S. The influence of 2 condensation techniques on the marginal seal of packable resin composite restorations. Quintessence Int 2007 May;38(5):423-428.
Burke FJ, Crisp RJ, James A, Mackenzie L, Pal A, Sands P, Thompson O, Palin WM. Two year clinical evaluation of a low-shrink resin composite material in UK general dental practices. Dent Mater 2011 Jul;27(7):622-630.
Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 2001 Spring;3(1):45-64.
Usha H, Kumari A, Mehta D, Kaiwar A, Jain N. Comparing microleakage and layering methods of silorane-based resin composite in class V cavities using confocal microscopy: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2011 Apr-Jun;14(2):164-168.
Majety KK, Pujar M. In vitro evaluation of microleakage of class II packable composite resin restorations using flowable composite and resin modified glass ionomers as intermediate layers. J Conserv Dent 2011 Oct;14(4):414-417.
Radhika M, Sajjan GS, Kumaraswamy BN, Mittal N. Effect of different placement techniques on marginal microleakage of deep class-II cavities restored with two composite resin formulations. J Conserv Dent 2010 Jan;13(1):9-15.
Poskus LT, Placido E, Cardoso PE. Influence of adhesive system and placement technique on microleakage of resin-based composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 2004 Autumn;6(3):227-232.
Van Ende A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B. Bulk-filling of high C-factor posterior cavities: Effect on adhesion to cavity-bottom dentin. Dent Mater 2013 Mar;29(3):269-277.
Eunice C, Margarida A, João C, Filomena B, Anabela P, Pedro A, Miguel MC, Diana RL, Joana M, Mário P, et al. 99mTc in the evaluation of microleakage of composite resin restorations with Sonic Fill TM. An in vitro experimental model. Open J Stomatol 2012;2:340-347.
Gogna R, Jagadis S, Shashikal K. A comparative in vitro study of microleakage by a radioactive isotope and compressive strength of three nanofilled composite resin restorations. J Conserv Dent 2011 Apr-Jun;14(2):128-131.
Helvatjoglu-Antoniades M, Kalinderis K, Pedulu L, Papadogiannis Y. The effect of pulse activation on microleakage of a ‘packable’ composite resin and two “ormocers”. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:1068-1074.
Ernst CP, Brandenbusch M, Meyer G, Canbek K, Gottschalk F, Willershausen B. Two-year clinical performance of a nanofiller vs a fine-particle hybrid resin composite. Clin Oral Investig 2006 Jun;10(2):119-125.
Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ. Polymerization shrinkage and contraction stress of dental resin composites. Dent Mater 2005 Dec;21(12):1150-1157.
Kidd EA. Microleakage: A review. J Dent 1976 Sep;4(5):199-206.
Alani AH, Toh CG. Detection of microleakage around dental restorations: A review. Oper Dent 1997 Jul-Aug;22(4):173-185.
Bullard RH, Leinfelder KF, Russel CM. Effect of coefficient of thermal expansion on microleakage. J Am Dent Assoc 1988 Jun;116(7):871-874.
Momoi H, Iwase H, Nakano Y, Kohno A, Asanuma A, Yanagisawa K. Gradual increase in marginal leakage of resin composite restorations with thermal stress. J Dent Res 1990 Oct;69(10):1659-1663.
Eick JD, Cobb CM, Chappel P, Spencer P, Robinson SJ. The dentinal structure: Its influence on dentinal adhesion. Part I. Quintessence Int 1991;22:967-977.
Deliperi S, Bardwell DN. An alternative method to reduce polymerization shrinkage in direct posterior composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2002 Oct;133(10):1387-1397.
Longfellow HW. Resin polymerization. In: Albers HF, editor. Tooth colored restoratives, principles and practices. Hamilton: BC Decker Inc.; 2002. p. 97.
Peris AR, Duarte S, de Andrade MF. Evaluation of marginal microleakage in class II cavities: effect of microhybrid, flowable, and compactable resins. Quintessence Int 2003;34:93-97.
Fan PL. Resin dentin bonding systems. Council on dental materials, instruments, and equipment. J Am Dent Assoc 1984;108(2):240-241.
Estafan D, Estafan A, Leinfelder KF. Cavity wall adaptation of resin based composites lined with flowable composites. Am J Dent 2000 Aug;13(4):192-194.
Wahab FK, Shaini FJ. Evaluation of the microleakage at the proximal walls of class II cavities restored using resin composite and precured composite inserts. Quintessence Int 2003 Sep;34(8):600-606.
Opdam NJ, Roeters JJ, Peters TC, Burgersdijk RC, Teunis M. Cavity wall adaptation and voids in adhesive class I resin composite restorations. Dent Mater 1996 Jul;12(4):230-235.
Hansen EK. Effect of cavity depth and application technique on marginal adaptation of resins in dental cavities. J Dent Res 1986 Nov;65(11):1319-1321.
Estafan D, Agosta C. Eliminating microleakage from composite resin system. Gen Dent 2003 Nov-Dec;51(6):506-509.
Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Complete marginal seal of class V resin composite restorations effected by increased flexibility. J Dent Res 1990 Jun;69(6):1240-1243.
Leevailoj C, Cochran MA, Matis BA, Moore BK, Platt JA. Microleakage of posterior packable resin composites with and without flowable liners. Oper Dent 2001 May-Jun;26(3):302-307.
Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift Jr EJ, Stamatiades P, Wilkerson M. A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc 1998 May;129(5):567-577.