Aim: The aim of the present in vitro study was to comparatively evaluate the microleakage in three different esthetic restorative materials in class I cavities using the dye penetration technique.
Materials and methods: Class I cavities were prepared on 24 human maxillary premolar teeth. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups of six samples each. Group I: Cention-N without adhesive (Ivoclar Vivadent, India), group II: Cention with adhesive (Ivoclar Vivadent, India), group III: type IX glass ionomer cement (Fuji), group IV: posterior composite (3M ESPE). The specimens were polished, subjected to thermocycling, and suspended in methylene blue dye for 24 hours. The teeth were sectioned longitudinally and the extent of microleakage was evaluated using the stereomicroscope.
Results: The results were subjected to statistical analysis using the Pearson\'s Chi-square test and the interobserver variability was assessed by the Kappa test for interobserver variability. The analysis showed statistically significant results among the groups. Although, Cention N with adhesive showed the least microleakage followed by Cention N without adhesive.
Conclusion: All the materials tested were unable to completely eliminate microleakage in class I cavities. However, the newer alkasite material Cention N proved to have the least microleakage among all groups.
Clinical significance: According to the present study, Cention N, a newer alkasite restorative material, demonstrated promising results with the least microleakage in comparison with posterior resin composites and glass ionomer cements.
Alvarenga FA, Andrade MA, Pinellic C, et al. Accuracy of digital images in the detection of marginal microleakage: an in vitro study. J Adhes Dent 2012;14(4):335–338. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a22713.
Castro A, Feigal R. Microleakage of a new improved glass ionomer restorative material in primary and permanent teeth. Pediatr Dent 2002;24(1):23–28.
Muliyar S, Shameem KA, Thankachan RP, et al. Microleakage in endodontics. J Int Oral Health 2014;6(6):99–104.
Patel MU, Punia SK, Bhat S, et al. An in vitro evaluation of microleakage of posterior teeth restored with amalgam, composite and zirconomer—a stereomicroscopic. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(7): ZC65–ZC67. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/13024.6225.
Popoff DAV, Gonçalves FS, Magalhães CS, et al. Repair of amalgam restorations with composite resin and bonded amalgam: a microleakage study. Indian J Dent Res 2011;22(6):799–803. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.94672.
Kanika VG, Pradhuman V, Ashwaryan T. Evaluation of microleakage of various restorative materials: an in vitro study. J Life Sci 2011;3(1): 29–33. DOI: 10.1080/09751270.2011.11885166.
Hegde MN, Vyapaka P, Shetty S. A comparative evaluation of microleakage of three different newer direct composite resins using a self etching primer in class V cavities. J Conserv Dent 2009;12(4): 160–163. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.58340.
Yamazaki PC, Bedran-Russo AK, Pereira PN, et al. Microleakage evaluation of a new low-shrinkage composite restorative material. Oper Dent 2006;31(6):670–676. DOI: 10.2341/05-129.
Eunice C, Margarida A, Joao CL, et al. Evaluation of microleakage of composite resin restorations with Sonic Fill. An in vitro experimental model. J Stomatol 2012;2:1–9.
Cention N [Ivoclar Vivadent], www.ivoclarvivadent.in/p/all/cention-n.
Takamizawa T, Barkmeier WW, Tsujimoto A, et al. Influence of different etching modes on bond strength and fatigue strength to dentin using universal adhesive systems. Dent Mater 2016;32(2):e9–e21. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.11.005.
Jayasheel A, Niranjan N, Pamidi H, et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of dental adhesives: an in vitro study. J Clin Exp Dent 2017;9(7):e892–e896. DOI: 10.4317/jced.53816.
Alptekin T, Ozer F, Unlu N, et al. In vitro evaluations of microleakage around class I amalgam and composite restorations. Oper Dent 2010;35(6):641–648. DOI: 10.2341/10-065-L.
Oskoee SS, Oskoee PA, Navimipour EJ, et al. Comparison of the effect of Nd:YAG and diode lasers and photodynamic therapy on microleakage of class V composite resin restorations. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospect 2013;7(2):74–80. DOI: 10.5681/joddd.2013. 013.
Heintze S. 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;9(Suppl 1):77–106.
Mali P, Deshpande S, Singh A. Microleakage of restorative materials: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2006;24(1):15–18. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.22828.
Brackett W, Gunnin T, Johnson W, et al. Microleakage of light cured glass ionomer restorative materials. Quintessence Int 1995;26(8): 583–585.
Roberson TM, Heymann HO, Swift EJ. Sturdevant's Art and Science of Operative Dentistry 2002. vol. 4 pp. 237–268.
Vinay S, Vasundhara S. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of fifth, sixth, and seventh generation dentin bonding agents: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2010;13(3):136–140. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.71645.
Almeida JB, Platt JA, Oshida Y, et al. Three different methods to evaluate microleakage of packable composites in class II restorations. Oper Dent 2003;28(4):453–460.
AlHabdan AA. Review of microleakage evaluation tools. J Int Oral Health 2017;9:141–145.