The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Assessment of Marginal Micro Leakage of Different Esthetic Restorative Materials Used on Primary Teeth: An In-vitro Study

Abdulhamid Al Ghwainem, Adel S Alqarni

Keywords : Class V cavity, Esthetic restorative materials, Micro leakage, Primary teeth

Citation Information : Al Ghwainem A, Alqarni AS. Comparative Assessment of Marginal Micro Leakage of Different Esthetic Restorative Materials Used on Primary Teeth: An In-vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (1):58-61.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3595

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 17-02-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The aim of the current investigation was to evaluate the marginal microleakage of various esthetic restorative materials applied to primary teeth. Materials and methods: A total of 75 noncarious primary molars that were removed for orthodontic intervention and teeth nearing exfoliation were chosen. One millimeter (mm) above the cementoenamel junction, on the buccal surface of the teeth, Class V cavities were prepared. William's graded periodontal probe was used to standardize cavity preparation on all teeth. 3 mm was the cavity's length, 2 mm in width, and 2 mm in depth. The teeth were then divided into three groups (25 samples in each group) according to the type of esthetic restorative material used. Group I: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement, Group II: Ormocer, Group III: Giomer. The samples underwent 500 cycles of thermocycling, with an immersion time of 60 seconds and a well time of 15 seconds, between 5 and 55°C. The samples were submerged in methylene blue dye for 24 hours at room temperature and dried. The samples were then divided into sections and examined with a stereomicroscope. Data was recorded and statistically analyzed. Results: The least marginal microleakage was found in the ormocer group (1.22 ± 0.01) followed by resin-modified glass ionomer cement group (1.31 ± 0.07) and the giomer group (1.78 ± 0.03). There was a highly statistically significant difference found between resin-modified glass ionomer cement group and the ormocer group, resin-modified glass ionomer cement group and giomer group. And no significant difference was found between the ormocer group and the giomer group. Conclusion: The present study concluded that there was some amount of microleakage in primary teeth in all restorative materials examined in this in-vitro investigation. However, the marginal sealing ability of ormocer was found highest compared to resin-modified glass ionomer cement and Giomer materials. Clinical significance: The primary reason dental restorations fail, particularly in Class V cavities, is microleakage since the margins of these restorations are typically found in the dentin or cementum. Assessing microleakage is a crucial step in determining the marginal integrity of restorative materials. Developing methods and resources that reduce the adverse effects caused by the restorative marginal seal failing would benefit from this.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Gaintantzopoulou MD, Gopinath VK, Zinelis S. Evaluation of cavity wall adaptation of bulk esthetic materials to restore class II cavities in primary molars. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21(4):1063–1070. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-016-1848-6.
  2. Al-Dahan ZA, Al-Attar AI, Al-Rubaee HE. A comparative study evaluating the microleakage of different types of restorative materials used in restoration of pulpotomized primary molars. J Bagh Coll Dent 2012;24:150–154. DOI: 10.0001/1286.
  3. Bollu IP, Hari A, Thumu J, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage between nano-ionomer, giomer and resin modified glass ionomer cement in Class V cavities-CLSM study. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(5):ZC66–ZC70. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/18730.7798.
  4. Lise DP, Lopes GC, Maia HP, et al. Microleakage of composite inlays luted with self-adhesive cements. Dent 2014;4(3):221. DOI: 10.4172/2161-1122.1000221.
  5. Lund RG, Carvalho RV, Rodrigues-Junior SA, et al. Sealing ability of different adhesive restorative materials. Rev Odontol UNESP 2009;38(4):204–210. Available from: https://revodontolunesp.com.br/article/588018917f8c9d0a098b4ce5/pdf/rou-38-4-204.pdf.
  6. Makarewicz D, Le Bell-Rönnlöf AM, Lassila LV, et al. Effect of cementation technique of individually formed fiber-reinforced composite post on bond strength and microleakage. Open Dent J 2013;7:68–75. DOI: 10.2174/1874210601307010068.
  7. Jain P. Ormocer-biocompatible, replacement for amalgam, composite and compomers. Journal of Conservative Dentistry 2001; 4(2):79–83. Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ormocer-%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%80%9C-Bio-Compatible-Replacement-For-Amalgam%2C-Jain/393a090357d026e655145dc1ba38e1518e3a3c88.
  8. Hafez MA, Elkateb M, El Shabrawy S, et al. Microleakage evaluation of composite restorations following papain-based chemo-mechanical caries removal in primary teeth. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017;41(1): 53–61. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-41.1.53.
  9. Mousavinenasab SM, Jafary M. Microleakage of composite restorations following chemo-mechanical and conventional caries removal. Front Dent 2004:1(4):12–17. eISSN: 2676–296X.
  10. Alomari QD, Barrieshi-Nusair K, Ali M. Effect of C-factor and LED curing mode on microleakage of class V resin composite restorations. Eur J Dent 2011;5(4):400–408. PMID: 21912498.
  11. Bertrand MF, Semez G, Leforestier E, et al. Er: YAG laser cavity preparation and composite resin bonding with a single-component adhesive system: Relationship between shear bond strength and microleakage. Lasers in Surg Med 2006;38(6):615–623. DOI: 10.1002/lsm.20342.
  12. Yavuz I, Tumen EC, Kaya CA, et al. The reliability of microleakage studies using dog and bovine primary teeth instead of human primary teeth. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2013;14(1):42–46. PMID: 23597219.
  13. Yazici AR, Ozgunaltay G, Dayangac B. The effect of different types of flowable restorative resins on microleakage of class v cavities. Oper Dent 2003;28(6):773–778. PMID: 14653293.
  14. Hickel R, Dasch W, Janda R, et al. New direct restorative materials. FDI Comission Product. Int Dent J 1998;48(1):3–16. DOI: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.1998.tb00688.x.
  15. Yadav G, Rehani U, Rana V. A comparative evaluation of marginal leakage of different restorative materials in deciduous molars: An in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012;5(2):101–107. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1145.
  16. Yap AU, Mok BY. Surface finish of a new hybrid aesthetic restorative material. Oper Dent 2002;27(2):161–166. PMID: 11933907.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.