Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation of Composite Restorations Reinforced with Novel Enamel Inserts (Biofillers) in Class V Cavities
Keerti S Allappanavar, Basanagouda S Patil, Reshma S Hegde, Prashant Moogi
Citation Information :
Allappanavar KS, 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.
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.
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.
Current JL. Trends in dental composites. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 1995;6(4):302–318. DOI: 10.1177/10454411950060040301.
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.
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.
Sealing ability of new generation adhesive-restorative materials placed on vital teeth. Am J Dent 2002;15:117–128.
Composite resins. A review of the materials and clinical indications. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2006;11:215–220.
Polymerization shrinkage of composites. A review. JIADS 2011;2:31–36.
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.
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.
AW, Gingival Microleakage of Class V Resin Composite Restorations with Fiber Inserts. (master's thesis, University of Toronto Libraries) University of Toronto; 2012.
Marginal adaptation of class 2 adhesive restorations. Quintessence Int 2008;39(5):413–419.
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.
Microleakage of three resin placement techniques. Am J Dent 1991;4:69–72.
Effect of composite resin placement techniques on the microleakage of two self-etching dentin bonding agents. Am J Dent 2001;14:132–136.
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.
Use of innovative megafillers for improving the marginal adaptation of composite restoration. Indian J Multidisciplin Dent 2011;1(4):186–189.
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.
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.
Microleakage of posterior composite restorations with fiber inserts using two adhesives after aging. J Dent Shiraz Univ Med Sci 2013;14(3):90–95.
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.
Microleakage of posterior composite-resin restorations using beta quartz glass-ceramic inserts. Asian J Aesthetic Dent 1993;1:81–84.
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.
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.
Dental material and their selection. 4th ed., Quintessence Publishing; 2008.
Evaluation of varied protocols applied to aged composite resin. J Adhes Dent 2005;7(1):41–49.
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.
Review of microleakage evaluation tools. J Int Oral Health 2017;9(4):141–145.
