The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2019 ) > List of Articles


Assessment of Microleakage Using Dye Penetration Method in Primary Teeth Restored with Tooth-colored Materials: An In Vitro Study

Sameer Punathil, Sultan A Almalki, Inderjit M Gowdar, Vijay Amarnath MC, Krishnarao Chinnari

Keywords : Class II cavity preparation, Microleakage, Primary molars, Thermocycling

Citation Information : Punathil S, Almalki SA, Gowdar IM, MC VA, Chinnari K. Assessment of Microleakage Using Dye Penetration Method in Primary Teeth Restored with Tooth-colored Materials: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (7):778-782.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2596

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-07-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Aim: The present study aimed to assess the microleakage in primary teeth restored with tooth-colored materials using the dye penetration method. Materials and methods: A total of 60 healthy primary molar teeth were included in this study and standardized class II mesio-occlusal cavities were prepared on the samples. Consequently, these teeth were randomly divided into three experimental groups (n = 20 each group) such as group I: nano-filled resin-modified glass-ionomer, group II: nanocomposite resin, and group III: Cention N. After completing all the restorations, the restored teeth were subjected to 100 cycles of thermocycling. Next, all the surfaces of the tooth, except the restoration and a 1-mm zone adjacent to the restoration\'s margins, were covered with two coats of nail varnish. The coated teeth were then submerged in a 0.5% basic fuchsin dye solution. The teeth were then sectioned along the center of each restoration mesiodistally. Each part was visualized under a stereomicroscope at ×40 magnifications to assess microleakage. Results: Out of all the included restorative materials, the least microleakage was demonstrated by teeth restored by the nano-filled resin-modified glass-ionomer (RMGI) group (1.05 ± 0.21) followed by the Cention N group (1.84 ± 0.14) and the nanocomposite resin group (3.10 ± 0.03). A statistical method involving the analysis of variance revealed a statistically significant difference among the different restorative materials. Multiple comparisons among the restorative materials showed a statistically significant difference between groups I and II and groups II and III restorative materials (p < 0.05). The dye penetration score 1 was more [11(55%)] for the nano-filled RMGI group, score 3 was more [12(60%)] for the nanocomposite resin group, and score 2 was more [9(45%)] for the Cention N group. Conclusion: The present study showed significantly less microleakage associated with the nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer group than nanocomposite resin and Cention N groups. Clinical significance: Since many years, dentists have encountered a challenging problem with cervical lesions. Thus, an interdisciplinary treatment approach is the appropriate option in the management of carious teeth that involve gingival recession and cervical extension.

PDF Share
  1. Shih W-Y. Microleakage in different primary tooth restorations. J Chin Med Assoc 2016;79:e228–e234. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcma.2015.10.007.
  2. Martin E. Adaptation and micro-leakage of composite resin restorations. Aust Dent J 1984;29(6):362–370. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1984.tb05303.x.
  3. Varpio M, Warfvinge J, et al. Proximo-occlusal composite restorations in primary molars-marginal adaptation. Bacterial penetration and pulpal reactions. Acta Odontol Scand 1990;48:161e7. DOI: 10.3109/00016359009005871.
  4. Öztürk F, Ersöz M, et al. Micro-CT evaluation of microleakage under orthodontic ceramic brackets bonded with different bonding techniques and adhesives. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:163–169. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjv023.
  5. Bonilla ED, Stevenson RG, et al. Microleakage resistance of minimally invasive Class I flowable composite restorations. Oper Dent 2012;37:290–298. DOI: 10.2341/11-106-L.
  6. Popoff DA, Gonçalves FS, et al. Repair of amalgam restorations with composite resin and bonded amalgam: a microleakage study. Indian J Dent Res 2011;22:799–803. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.94672.
  7. Sahu D, Somani R, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of various glass-ionomer cements: an in vitro study. Int J Prev Clin Dent Res 2018;5:17–20.
  8. Moezyzadeh M, Kazemipoor M. Effect of different placement techniques on microleakage of class V composite restorations. J Dent 2009;6:121–129.
  9. Cehreli SB, Tirali RE, et al. Microleakage of newly developed glass carbomer cement in primary teeth. Eur J Dent 2013;7:15–21. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.119058.
  10. Derhami K, Colli P, et al. Microleakage in Class 2 composite restorations. Oper Dent 1995;20:100–105.
  11. Hilton TJ, Schwartz RS, et al. Microleakage of four class II resin composite insertion techniques at intra oral temperature. Quintessence Int 1997;28:135–144.
  12. Demarco FF, Ramos OL, et al. Influence of different restorative techniques on microleakage in class II cavities with gingival wall in cementum. Oper Dent 2001;26:253–259.
  13. Wadenya R, Mante FK. An in vitro comparison of marginal microleakage of alternative restorative treatment and conventional glass ionomer restorations in extracted permanent molars. Pediatr Dent 2007;29:303–307.
  14. Youssef MN, Youssef FA, et al. Effect of enamel preparation method on in vitro marginal microleakage of a flowable composite used as pit and fissure sealant. Int J Paediatr Dent 2006;16:342–347. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2006.00751.x.
  15. Fahmy AE, Farrag NM. Microleakage and shear punch bond strength in Class II primary molars cavities restored with low shrink silorane based vs methacrylate based composite using three different techniques. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2010;35(2):173–182. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.35.2.u6142007hj421041.
  16. Beznos C. Microleakage at the cervical margin of composite Class II cavities with different restorative techniques. Oper Dent 2001;26(1):60–69.
  17. Gupta SK, Gupta J, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage in Class V cavities using various glass ionomer cements: an in vitro study. J Interdiscip Dentistry 2012;2:164–169. DOI: 10.4103/2229-5194.113245.
  18. Abd El Halim S, Zaki D. Comparative evaluation of microleakage among three different glass ionomer types. Oper Dent 2011;36:36–42. DOI: 10.2341/10-123-LR.
  19. Wadenya R, Smith J, et al. Microleakage of nano particles filled resin modified glass ionomer using atraumatic restorative technique in primary molars. NY State Dent J 2010;76:36–39.
  20. Upadhyay S, Rao A. Nanoionomer: evaluation of microleakage. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2011;29:21–24.
  21. George P, Bhandary S. A Comparative Microleakage Analysis of a Newer Restorative Material – An Ex vivo Study. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences 2018;17(12):56–60.
  22. Samanta S, Das UK, et al. Comparison of Microleakage In Class V Cavity Restored with Flowable Composite Resin, Glass Ionomer Cement and Cention N. Imp J Interdiscip Res 2017;3(8):180–183.
  23. Lopes M Ultra morphological study of the interface: dentin-Cention N as a function of saliva contamination and the usage of an adhesive system. Scientific documentation of Cention N. 2015:24–25.
  24. Meshram PV, Meshram VS. Comparative evaluation of microleakage around class v cavities restored with new alkasite material and two different flowable compositeresin-an in vitro study. Int J Curr Res 2018;10(04):67780–67783.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.