The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 7 ( November, 2008 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Influence of Location of the Gingival Margin on the Microleakage and Internal Voids of Nanocomposites

Emre Ozel, Yonca Korkmaz, Nuray Attar

Citation Information : Ozel E, Korkmaz Y, Attar N. Influence of Location of the Gingival Margin on the Microleakage and Internal Voids of Nanocomposites. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9 (7):65-72.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-9-7-65

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-10-2010

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2008; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim

The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the cervical microleakage and internal voids of nanocomposites comparing them with a hybrid composite in Class II restorations with the margins located coronal and apical to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ).

Methods and Materials

Standardized MOD cavities (one cervical margin located in dentin, one in enamel) were prepared in 40 extracted human molars and divided into four groups according to the composite used to restore them (n=10/group). Group 1: Adper Single Bond2/Filtek Supreme XT; Group 2: Excite/Tetric EvoCeram; Group 3: Prime & BondNT/Ceram X; and Group 4 (control) Adper Single Bond2/Filtek Z250. Groups were further divided into subgroups A and B. The “A” subgroups represent the level of the location of the cervial margin at 1 mm coronal to the CEJ, and the “B” subgroups represent the level of the cervical margin located 1 mm apical to the CEJ. After restoration of the cavities with nanocomposites, thermocycling, and immersion in 0.5% basic fuchsin, the dye penetration and internal voids were evaluated under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests with the Bonferroni correction for microleakage and with the Chi-square test for internal voids (p<0.05).

Results

The microleakage in the A subgroups was statistically significantly lower then B subgroups (p<0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed in terms of interface, cervical, and occlusal voids for all groups (p>0.05). No significant difference was observed between each group for three voids in all groups (p>0.05).

Conclusion

The location of the gingival margin affects the microleakage of nanocomposites but has no significant affect on the internal voids.

Clinical Significance

Gingival margin located 1 mm coronal to the CEJ provided a reduction in cervical microleakage in nanocomposite restorations.

Citation

Ozel E, Korkmaz Y, Attar N. Influence of Location of the Gingival Margin on the Microleakage and Internal Voids of Nanocomposites. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 November; (9)7:065-072.

PDF Share
  1. Quantitative evaluation of marginal leakage of two resin composite restorations using two filling techniques. Oper Dent 2002; 27:475-9.
  2. The effect of flowable resin composites as gingival increments on the microleakage of posterior resin composites. Oper Dent 2004; 29:162-7.
  3. Effect of Flowable Composite Lining on Microleakage and Internal Voids in Class II Composite Restorations. J Adhes Dent 2007; 9:189-94.
  4. Influence of flowable liner and margin location on microleakage of conventional and packable class II resin composites. Oper Dent 2005; 30:32-8.
  5. The effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of composite resin materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007; 8:27-35.
  6. Surface roughness of novel resin composites polished with one-step systems. Oper Dent 2007; 32:185-92.
  7. The competition between the composite-dentin bond strength and the polymerization contraction stress. J Dent Res 1984; 63:1396-9.
  8. Effect of two light-emitting diode (LED) and one halogen curing light on the microleakage of Class V flowable composite restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007; 8:80-8.
  9. Effect of various incremental techniques on the marginal adaptation of class II composite resin restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 67:62-6.
  10. Microleakage: a review. J Dent 1976; 4:199-206.
  11. The marginal adaptation of four different bonding agents in Class II composite resin restorations applied in bulk or in two increments. Quintessence Int 1993; 24:583-91.
  12. Influence of flowable composite lining on Class II composite restorations. Oper Dent 2004; 29:301-8.
  13. Effects of flowable composite lining and operator experience on microleakage and internal voids in Class II composite restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 85:177-83.
  14. Influence of resin composite shade and location of the gingival margin on the microleakage of posterior restorations. Oper Dent 2006; 31:556-61.
  15. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent 1999; 27:89-99.
  16. Nanoleakage: leakage within the hybrid layer. Oper Dent 1995; 20:18-25.
  17. An in vitro microleakage study of the ‘bonded-base’ restorative technique. J Oral Rehabil 1997; 24:230-6.
  18. A review of polymerization contraction: the influence of stress development versus stress relief. Oper Dent 1996; 21:17-24.
  19. Influence of different restorative techniques on microleakage in Class II cavities with gingival wall in cementum. Oper Dent 2001; 26:253-9.
  20. Marginal integrity and postoperative sensitivity in Class 2 resin composite restorations in vivo. J Dent 1998; 26:555-62.
  21. Microleakage of Class II posterior composite restorations with gingival margins placed entirely within dentin. J Can Dent Assoc 2007; 73:255.
  22. Polymerization shrinkage and microleakage in Class II cavities of various resin composites. Oper Dent. 2003; 28(5):635-641.
  23. Dental adhesion: present state of the art and future perspectives. Quintessence Int 2002; 33:213-24.
  24. The effect of flowable resin composite on microleakage and internal voids in Class II composite restorations. Oper Dent 2004; 29:713-9.
  25. Using packable composites for direct posterior placement. J Am Dent Assoc 2001; 132:1099-104.
  26. Evaluation of the microleakage at the proximal walls of Class II cavities restored using resin composite and precured composite inserts. Quintessence Int 2003; 34:600-6.
  27. Using posterior composites appropriately. J Am Dent Assoc 1992; 123:53-58.
  28. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. J Dent Res 1987; 66:1636-9.
  29. Photoelastic analysis of polymerization contraction stres in resin composite restorations. J Dent 1998; 26:165-71.
  30. Microleakage at the cervical margin of composite Class II cavities with different restorative techniques. Oper Dent 2001; 26:60-9.
  31. Microleakage of four Class II resin composite insertion techniques at intraoral temperature. Quintessence Int 1997; 28:135-44.
  32. Effect of composite resin placement techniques on the microleakage of two self-etching dentin-bonding agents. Am J Dent 2001;14:132-6.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.