The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2020 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation of Composite Restorations Reinforced with Novel Enamel Inserts (Biofillers) in Class V Cavities

Nandini Biradar, Keerti S Allappanavar, Nithin K Shetty, Basanagouda S Patil, Reshma S Hegde, Prashant Moogi

Keywords : Biofillers, Enamel inserts, Megafillers polymerization shrinkage, Microleakage

Citation Information : Biradar N, Allappanavar KS, Shetty NK, Patil BS, Hegde RS, Moogi P. Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation of Composite Restorations Reinforced with Novel Enamel Inserts (Biofillers) in Class V Cavities. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (12):1368-1373.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2964

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 13-04-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim and objective: To evaluate the marginal adaptation at the tooth-restoration interface at enamel and cementum margins using composite restoration reinforced with novel enamel inserts/biofillers. Materials and methods: Standardized class V box-shaped cavities were prepared in 40 extracted maxillary first premolar teeth which were divided randomly into four experimental groups consisting of 10 samples each. Group I: Bulk placement. Groups II: Horizontal incremental technique. Group III: Restoration with precured composite balls (megafillers). Group IV: Restoration with biofillers. All the cavities were restored with visible light-activated direct restorative nanocomposite. The specimens were thermocycled for 24 hours. After thermocycling, the samples were immersed in a 1% methylene blue for 4 hours and subsequently evaluated for microleakage. Microleakage scores (0–4) were obtained from gingival margins of class V restorations and analyzed by statistical analysis. Evaluation of the data was performed by Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Mann–Whitney U tests. Results: Microleakage scores have indicated restorations with biofillers showed best results followed by megafillers, incremental horizontal build-up, and bulk filling. Conclusion: Biofillers provide a novel approach in improving microleakage and marginal adaptability of composite resin restorations. Clinical significance: Incorporation of inserts, which are capable of adequate bonding to resin and tooth, may provide improved marginal adaptability and reduce microleakage around restorative margins.


PDF Share
  1. 3D Mapping of polymerization shrinkage using X-ray microcomputed tomography to predict microleakage. Dent Mater 2009(3):314–320. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2008.07.010.
  2. Current JL. Trends in dental composites. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 1995;6(4):302–318. DOI: 10.1177/10454411950060040301.
  3. Glass-ceramic inserts anticipated for“megafiller” composite restorations. Research moves into the office. J Am Dent Assoc 1991;122(3):71–75. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1991.0122.
  4. Comparing microleakage and layering methods of silorane-based resin composite in class V cavities using confocal microscopy: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2011;14(2):164–168. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.82624.
  5. Sealing ability of new generation adhesive-restorative materials placed on vital teeth. Am J Dent 2002;15:117–128.
  6. Composite resins. A review of the materials and clinical indications. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2006;11:215–220.
  7. Polymerization shrinkage of composites. A review. JIADS 2011;2:31–36.
  8. Effect of prepolymerized composite megafillers on marginal adaptation of composite restorations in cavities with different C-factors: an SEM study. Indian J Dent Res 2010;21(4):500–505. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.74218.
  9. Factors influencing marginal cavity adaptation of nanofiller containing resin composite restorations. Dent Mater 2010;26(12):1166–1175. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.08.189.
  10. AW, Gingival Microleakage of Class V Resin Composite Restorations with Fiber Inserts. (master's thesis, University of Toronto Libraries) University of Toronto; 2012.
  11. Marginal adaptation of class 2 adhesive restorations. Quintessence Int 2008;39(5):413–419.
  12. Effect of four different placement technique on marginal leakage in class II composite restorations: an in vitro study. World J Dent 2011;2(2):111–116.
  13. Microleakage of three resin placement techniques. Am J Dent 1991;4:69–72.
  14. Effect of composite resin placement techniques on the microleakage of two self-etching dentin bonding agents. Am J Dent 2001;14:132–136.
  15. Marginal adaptation of nanofilled, packable and hybrid dental composite resins stored in artificial saliva. American Journal of Biomedical Engineering 2012;2(3):105–114. DOI: 10.5923/j.ajbe.20120203.03.
  16. Use of innovative megafillers for improving the marginal adaptation of composite restoration. Indian J Multidisciplin Dent 2011;1(4):186–189.
  17. An in-vitro investigation of the effects of glass inserts on the effective composite resin polymerization shrinkage. J Dent Res 1989;68(8):1234–1237. DOI: 10.1177/00220345890680080401.
  18. Microleakage around glass-ceramic insert restorations luted with a high-viscous or flowable composite. J Esthet Restor Dent 2005;17(1):30–39. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2005.tb00080.x.
  19. Microleakage of posterior composite restorations with fiber inserts using two adhesives after aging. J Dent Shiraz Univ Med Sci 2013;14(3):90–95.
  20. Evaluation of the microleakage at the proximal walls of class II cavities restored using resin composite and precured composite insert. Quint Int 2003;34:600–606.
  21. Microleakage of posterior composite-resin restorations using beta quartz glass-ceramic inserts. Asian J Aesthetic Dent 1993;1:81–84.
  22. Ceramic inserts do not generally improve resin composite margins. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32(8):606–613. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01459.x.
  23. The influence of fiber reinforcement of composites on shear bond strengths to enamel. J Prosthe Dentist 2003;89(4):388–393. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2003.87.
  24. Dental material and their selection. 4th ed., Quintessence Publishing; 2008.
  25. Evaluation of varied protocols applied to aged composite resin. J Adhes Dent 2005;7(1):41–49.
  26. Effect of silane primers and unfilled resin bonding agents on repair bond strength of prosthodontic microfilled composite. J Oral Rehab 2002;29(7):642–648. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00899.x.
  27. Review of microleakage evaluation tools. J Int Oral Health 2017;9(4):141–145.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.