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: 01-08-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


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.

  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.