The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 5 ( November, 2006 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The Effect of Two Different Polishing Techniques on Microleakage of New Composites in Class V Restorations

Meserret Baseren, Filiz Yalcin, Yonca Korkmaz

Citation Information : Baseren M, Yalcin F, Korkmaz Y. The Effect of Two Different Polishing Techniques on Microleakage of New Composites in Class V Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006; 7 (5):18-25.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-7-5-18

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 00-11-2006

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2006; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of polishing systems on the microleakage of a nanofill, a nanohybrid, and a microhybrid composite in Class V cavities.

Methods and Materials

Preparations were made at the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) of 36 extracted human premolars. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups and restored with new resin composites according to the manufacturers’ instructions as follows: Group 1, Filtek Supreme & Single Bond; Group 2, Grandio & Solobond; and Group 3, Artemis & Excite. The restorations were finished with diamond finishing burs. The restored/finished teeth were randomly divided into two groups and polished using the following systems: Super-Snap (Al2O2 coated, abrasive disc system, fine grit, and extra fine grit) and Astropol/Astrobrush (silicon-based abrasive polisher point and polisher brush). All specimens were thermocycled 1000 times with a 10 second dwell time. They were immersed in 0.5% aqueous basic fuchsin dye for 24 hours and then sectioned buccal-lingual-longitudinally through the center of both restorations of each tooth and evaluated under a stereomicroscope at 30X magnification. The degree of dye penetration was quantified.

Result

No significant difference in leakage scores was observed in enamel margins (p=0.456, Kruskall Wallis test), but dentin margins were significantly affected by the different polishing systems (p=0.037, Kruskall Wallis test). The lower leakage scores were recorded for Astropol/Astrobrush polishing systems. The nanofill composite showed the least leakage among the test groups in this study. The most leakage was observed in nanohybrid composite resin (p<0.05, Mann Whitney U test).

Conclusions

Under the conditions of this in vitro study: the microleakage resistance of composites at enamel margins is not significantly affected by the different polishing systems; the lowest leakage scores were recorded for Astropol/Astrobrush polishing techniques in different types of composites; and the ranking of the composite materials from most to least leakage at the dentin margins according to polishing techniques was Grandio >Artemis > Filtek Supreme.

Citation

Yalcin F, Korkmaz Y, BasŞeren M. The Effect of Two Different Polishing Techniques on Microleakage of New Composites in Class V Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006 November;(7)5:018-025.


PDF Share
  1. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composite resin and ormocer-based tooth-colored restorative materials after several finishing and polishing procedures. J Biomater Appl 2004;19(2):121-134.
  2. Esthetics: direct adhesive restoration on fractured anterior teeth. San Paulo Quintessence Books 1995, 397.
  3. Influence of finishing time on marginal sealing ability of new generation composite bonding systems. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:871-876.
  4. Effect of finishing technique on the microleakage of resin modified glass ionomer restorative materials. J Dent 2000;28:367-373.
  5. Direct composite resin restorations: a review of some clinical procedures to achieve predictable results in posterior teeth. J Esthet Restorative Dent 2004;16(1):7-16.
  6. New finishing instruments for composite resins. J Am Dent Assoc 1983;107:575-580.
  7. The competition between the composite dentin bond strength and the polymerization contraction stress. J Dent Res 1984;63(12):1396-1399.
  8. The effect of three finishing systems on four esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 1998; 23: 193-201.
  9. The effect of polishing systems on microleakage of tooth colored restoratives: Part 2 Composite and polyasid- modified composite resins. J Oral Rehabil 2000;27:205-210.
  10. Microleakage: A review. J Dent 1976;4(5):199-206.
  11. Bacterial leakage around dental restorations: Its effect on the dental pulp. J Oral Pathol 1982;11(6):439-450.
  12. Microleakage related to restorative procedures. Proceed Fin Dent Soc 1992;88(Suppl 1):83-93.
  13. Influence of different restorative techniques on mikroleakage in class II cavities with gingival wall in cementum. Oper Dent 2001;26:253-259.
  14. Marginal quality and microleakage of adhesive class V restorations. J Dent 2001;29:123-130.
  15. Variations in tooth surface temperature in the oral cavity during fluid intake. Biomaterials 1987;8:411.
  16. Polymerization shrinkage of posterior composite resins and its possible influence on postoperative sensitivity. Quintessence Int 1986;17(2):103-111.
  17. Biodegratation of dental composites/glassionomer cements. Adv Dent Res 1992;6:50-54.
  18. Bond strength and microleakage of current dentine adhesives. Dent Mater 1994;10(4):253-258.
  19. Posterior composite resin restorative- clinical considerations Invanherie G&Smith Dc (eds) Posterior Composite Resin Dental Restorative materials St Paul 3M Co Peter Szulc Publishing Co, Netherlands 1985, 455.
  20. The cause of postrestorative sensitivity and its prevention. J Endodont 1986;12(10):475-481.
  21. Microleakage and internal voids in class II composite restorations with flowable composite linings. Oper Dent 2001;26:193-200.
  22. Effects of finishing/polishing techniques on microleakage of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations. Oper Dent 2003;28:36-41.
  23. The effect of polishing systems on microleakage of tooth colored restoratives: Part 1. Conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. J Oral Rehabil 2000;27:117-123.
  24. The influence of finishing technique on microleakage. J Esthet Dent 1990;2:142.
  25. The effect of three polishing systems on the surface roughness of four hybrid composites; a profilometric and scanning electron microscopy study. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:34.
  26. Effect of finishing time and techniques on marginal sealing ability of two composite restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88(1):32-36.
  27. Clinical relevance of physical, chemical and bonding properties of composite resin. Oper Dent 1985;10:61-73.
  28. Structural changes in composite surface material after dry polishing. J Oral Rehabil 1981;8:431-439.
  29. Restorative dental materials. 11 th ed. St. Louis : Mosby; 2001. p 670.
  30. Current concepts on adhesion to dentin. Critic Rew Oral Biol Med 1997;8(3):306-335.
  31. Evaluation of acidic primers in microleakage of class 5 composite resin restorations. Oper Dent 1998; 23: 244-249.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.