The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of Microleakage Using Dye-penetration Method in Three Different Composite Resin Core Build-up Materials: An In Vitro Study

Mrinmoy Chakraborty, Amitu Singh, Amrita Kumari, Ravi S Prasad, Abhishek Anand

Keywords : Composite resin, Core build-up materials, Dye-penetration, Microleakage

Citation Information : Chakraborty M, Singh A, Kumari A, Prasad RS, Anand A. Evaluation of Microleakage Using Dye-penetration Method in Three Different Composite Resin Core Build-up Materials: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (1):61-65.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3220

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 21-05-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: Aim of the current research is to establish and assess the microleakage in bulk-fill composite, nanohybrid ormocer-based resins, and nanofilled composite resin core build-up materials employing the dye-penetration technique. Materials and methods: Sixty human mandibular first premolar teeth with a solitary root canal without dental caries were chosen for this research. Each specimen was subjected to decoronation of 2 mm from the cementoenamel junction (CEJ), following which the root canal treatment procedure was rendered complete. A space for the post was made for all the 60 samples. Following positioning of the post, specimens were allocated into one of the following three investigational groups (20 specimens in every group) on the basis of the core build-up materials used as group I: bulk-fill composites, group II: nanohybrid ormocer-based resins, and group III: nanofilled resin composites. Direct composite was used for core build-up and subjected to light-curing. Following this, the specimens were immersed in 1% methylene blue solution for 24 hours interval. Each section was evaluated for dye diffusion employing a stereomicroscope with software at a magnifying power of 40× and surface contact between dentin and base of the material was evaluated under scanning electron microscope. Results: Nanohybrid ormocer-based composites exhibited the least microleakage at 1.12 ± 0.14, in pursuit by nanofilled composite resins at 1.79 ± 0.09, and finally the bulk-fill composites at 2.85 ± 0.11, amid the investigational groups studied. A statistically significant difference amid the three dissimilar cores buildup substances was found upon analysis of variance. Conclusion: Despite the study limitations, this research came to a conclusion that each of the three investigated core build-up substances exhibited microleakage. However, amid the three, nanohybrid ormocer-based composites depicted the lowest amount of microleakage in pursuit by the nanofilled resins and the bulk-fill composites. Clinical significance: Core build-up is an important requirement as the remaining tooth substance following root canal treatment reduces and needs reinforcement with core build-up to sustain the tooth structure and provide resistance. A vital mandate for enduring efficiency of the restoration in the mouth is high-quality adhesive bond of these agents to cavity walls with diminished microleakage.

  1. Smidt A, Bmed SC, Venezia E, et al. Techniques for immediate core buildup of endodontically treated teeth. Quintessence Int 2003;34(4):258–268. PMID: 12731611.
  2. Ferrier S, Sekhon BS, Brunton PA. A study of the fracture resistance of Nyyar Cores of Four restorative materials. Oper Dent 2008;33(3): 305–311. DOI: 10.2341/07-90.
  3. Yalcin E, Cehreli MC, Canay S. Fracture resistances of cast metal and ceramic Dowel and core restorations: a pilot study. J Prosthodont 2005;14(2):84–90. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2005.00016.x.
  4. Bonilla ED, Mardirossian G, Caputo AA. Fracture toughness of various core build-up materials. J Prosthodont 2000;9(1):14–18. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849x.2000.00014.x.
  5. Oskoee PA, Ajami AA, Navimipour EJ, et al. The effect of three composite fiber insertion techniques on fracture resistance of root-filled teeth. J Endod 2009;35(3):413–416. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.11.027.
  6. Rajkumar B, Iqbal M, Boruah LC, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three recent resin based core materials: an in vitro study. Endodontology 2012;24:97–102. Available from:
  7. Popoff DA, 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.
  8. Sahafi A, Peutzfeldt A. Durability of the bond between resin composite cores and prefabricated posts. Acta Odontol Scand 2009;67(5):271–276. DOI: 10.1080/00016350902938571.
  9. Simone D, David NB, Aikaterini P, et al. Microleakage of resin-based liner materials and condensable composites using filled and unfilled adhesives. Am J Dent 2003;16(5):351–355. PMID: 14677616.
  10. Hamouda IM, Elkader HA, Badawi MF. Microleakage of nanofilled composite resin restorative material. J Biomater Nanobiotechnol 2011;2(2):329–334. DOI: 10.4236/jbnb.2011.23040.
  11. Kalra S, Singh A, Gupta M, et al. Ormocer: an esthetic direct restorative material: an in vitro study comparing the marginal sealing ability of organically modified ceramics and a hybrid composite using an ormocer based bonding agent under a conventional 5th generational bonding agent. Contemp Clin Dent 2012;3(1):48–53. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.94546.
  12. Moszner N, Gianasmidis A, Klapdohr S, et al. Solgel materials 2. Lightcuring dental composites based on ormocers of crosslinking alkoxysilane methacrylates and further nanocomponents. Dent Mater 2008;24(6):851–856. DOI: 10.1016/
  13. Erdilek D, Dörter C, Koray F, et al. Effect of thermo-mechanical load cycling on microleakage in class II ormocer restorations. Eur J Dent 2009;3(3):200–205. PMID: 19756194.
  14. Giachetti L, Scaminaci Russo D, Bambi C, et al. A review of polymerization shrinkage stress: current techniques for posterior direct resin restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006;7(4):79–88. PMID: 16957794.
  15. Burgess J, Cakir D. Comparative properties of low-shrinkage composite resins. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2010;31 (Spec No 2):10–15. PMID: 20521569.
  16. Czasch P, Ilie N. In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17(1): 227–235. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-012-0702-8.
  17. Roggendorf M, Krämer N, Appelt A, et al. Marginal quality of flowable 4-mm base vs conventionally layered resin composite. J Dent 2011;39(10):643–647. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.07.004.
  18. Geerts S, Seidel L, Albert A, et al. Microleakage after thermocycling of three self-etch adhesives under resin-modified glass-ionomer cement restorations. Int J Dent 2010:1–6. DOI: 10.1155/2010/728453.
  19. Helvatjoglu-Antoniades M, Kalinderis K, Pedulu L, et al. The effect of pulse activetion on microleakage of a “packable” composite resin and two “ormocers”. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31(11):1068–1074. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01337.x.
  20. Souza R, Özcan M, Michida S, et al. Conversion degree of indirect resin composites and effect of thermocycling on their physical properties. J Prosthodont 2010;19(3):218–225. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00551.x.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.