Literature DB >> 18647507

Microleakage and polymerization shrinkage of various polymer restorative materials.

David Alain Gerdolle1, Eric Mortier, Dominique Droz.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the polymerization shrinkage and the microleakage of direct resin-based restorative materials commonly used in pediatric dentistry.
METHODS: Standardized Class V cavities overlapping the cementoenamel junction were prepared on the buccal and the lingual surfaces of 40 extracted human mandibular third molars (36 specimens, 4 controls). The cavities were restored with 4 different materials: a packable resin composite (Filtek P60), a compomer (Compoglass F), an ormocer (Admira) and their associated bonding agents (Scotchbond 1, Excite, and Admira Bond, respectively), and a resin-modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC). The teeth were then immersed in methylene blue solution for 48 hours. Dye penetration was evaluated for all materials, which were analyzed using a multivariate model (alpha=0.05): influence of microleakage score, margin location (enamel/cementum), and preparation location (buccal/lingual). Multivariate analysis was performed using a polychotomous logistic regression. Polymerization shrinkage was evaluated by the disk deflective method. The percentage of polymerization shrinkage (N=3) was evaluated by ANOVA and Tukey test.
RESULTS: Regarding polymerization shrinkage, the P60 demonstrated the lowest value, followed by ADM and COF, whereas FLC presented the highest shrinkage-strain (P<.0001). The preparation location had no significant effect on dye penetration (P=.86). Margin location (enamel or cementum) had a significant effect on microleakage (odds ratio [OR]=24.61). Significant differences in the microleakage patterns and scores were also observed between the 4 restorative materials. Admira exhibited the lowest overall microleakage. In comparing Filtek P60, Compoglass F, and Fuji II LC to Admira, P60 showed significantly less microleakage (OR=1.30) than Fuji II LC (OR=1.47), whereas Compoglass F demonstrated the greatest significant overall microleakage (OR=3.15).
CONCLUSION: Within the experimental conditions of this in vitro study, the microleakage was significantly lower at the enamel margins than at the cementum margins for the four restorative materials tested. The ormocer and the packable resin composite exhibited the best sealing ability, as well as the lowest polymerization shrinkage. It could not be demonstrated in this study, however, that the higher the polymerization shrinkage was, the lower the marginal sealing ability was.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18647507

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dent Child (Chic)        ISSN: 1551-8949


  16 in total

1.  Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage Between Nano-Ionomer, Giomer and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement in Class V Cavities- CLSM Study.

Authors:  Indira Priyadarshini Bollu; Archana Hari; Jayaprakash Thumu; Lakshmi Deepa Velagula; Nagesh Bolla; Sujana Varri; Srikanth Kasaraneni; Siva Venkata Malathi Nalli
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-05-01

2.  Effect of cavity configuration (C factor) on the marginal adaptation of low-shrinking composite: a comparative ex vivo study.

Authors:  Motaz A Ghulman
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2011-09-19

3.  Comparative evaluation of residual monomer content and polymerization shrinkage of a packable composite and an ormocer.

Authors:  Shalini Sharma; Bhupinder Kaur Padda; Veena Choudhary
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2012-04

Review 4.  Sealing Ability of Nano-ionomer in Primary Teeth: An ex vivo Study.

Authors:  Fawaz Siddiqui; Swati Karkare
Journal:  Int J Clin Pediatr Dent       Date:  2016-09-27

5.  Effect of thermocycling and varying polymerization techniques on the restorative interface of class V cavities restored with different composite resin systems.

Authors:  Jefferson-Ricardo Pereira; Lindomar-Corrêa Júnior; Marcus-Vinicius-Reis Só; Newton-Fahl Júnior
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2017-03-01

6.  Microleakage of an Enhanced Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Restorative Material in Primary Molars.

Authors:  Baharan Ranjbar Omidi; Fatemeh Ferdowsizadeh Naeini; Hajar Dehghan; Parvin Tamiz; Maryam Mohammadi Savadroodbari; Razieh Jabbarian
Journal:  J Dent (Tehran)       Date:  2018-07

7.  MARGINAL MICROLEAKAGE PROPERTIES OF ACTIVA BIOACTIVE RESTORATIVE AND NANOHYBRID COMPOSITE RESIN USING TWO DIFFERENT ADHESIVES IN NON CARIOUS CERVICAL LESIONS - AN IN VITRO STUDY.

Authors:  M Kaushik; M Yadav
Journal:  J West Afr Coll Surg       Date:  2017 Apr-Jun

8.  Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three restorative glass ionomer cements: An in vitro study.

Authors:  Amish Diwanji; Vineet Dhar; Ruchi Arora; A Madhusudan; Ambika Singh Rathore
Journal:  J Nat Sci Biol Med       Date:  2014-07

9.  Effect of cleaning methods on bond strength of self-etching adhesive to dentin.

Authors:  Juliana Delatorre Bronzato; Doglas Cecchin; Daniela Cristina Miyagaki; José Flávio Affonso de Almeida; Caio Cezar Randi Ferraz
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb

10.  Dimensional Changes of Glass Ionomers and a Giomer during the Setting Time.

Authors:  Jelena Spajić; Katica Prskalo; Kristina Šariri; Matej Par; Vlatko Pandurić; Nazif Demoli
Journal:  Acta Stomatol Croat       Date:  2018-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.