INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to determine and compare microleakage patterns of conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin modified GIC (RMGIC), and polyacid-modified composite for band cementation. METHODS:Sixty freshly extracted third molars were randomly divided into 3 groups of 20 teeth each. Microetched molar bands in the 3 groups were cemented to enamel with one of three orthodontic cements: Ketac-Cem (3M ESPE, Gmbh, Seefeld, Germany), Multi-Cure (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif), and Transbond Plus (3M Unitek). A dye penetration method was used for microleakage evaluation. Microleakage was determined by a stereomicroscope for the cement-band and cement-enamel interfaces from both the buccal and lingual margins. Statistical analysis was performed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: The buccal sides had similar microleakage values compared with the lingual sides for the cement-enamel and cement-band interfaces with all cements. Statistical comparisons showed statistically significant differences among the band cements between both interfaces (P <0.001). When the cement systems were compared, conventional GIC showed the highest leakage scores between cement-band (median, 3.50 mm) and cement-enamel (median, 2.88 mm) interfaces. Teeth banded with RMGIC and modified composite showed similar microleakage scores, and both had less leakage (<1 mm) than conventional GIC. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional GIC is associated with more microleakage than RMGIC and modified composite at both the cement-band and cement-enamel interfaces. Copyright (c) 2010 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to determine and compare microleakage patterns of conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin modified GIC (RMGIC), and polyacid-modified composite for band cementation. METHODS: Sixty freshly extracted third molars were randomly divided into 3 groups of 20 teeth each. Microetched molar bands in the 3 groups were cemented to enamel with one of three orthodontic cements: Ketac-Cem (3M ESPE, Gmbh, Seefeld, Germany), Multi-Cure (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif), and Transbond Plus (3M Unitek). A dye penetration method was used for microleakage evaluation. Microleakage was determined by a stereomicroscope for the cement-band and cement-enamel interfaces from both the buccal and lingual margins. Statistical analysis was performed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: The buccal sides had similar microleakage values compared with the lingual sides for the cement-enamel and cement-band interfaces with all cements. Statistical comparisons showed statistically significant differences among the band cements between both interfaces (P <0.001). When the cement systems were compared, conventional GIC showed the highest leakage scores between cement-band (median, 3.50 mm) and cement-enamel (median, 2.88 mm) interfaces. Teeth banded with RMGIC and modified composite showed similar microleakage scores, and both had less leakage (<1 mm) than conventional GIC. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional GIC is associated with more microleakage than RMGIC and modified composite at both the cement-band and cement-enamel interfaces. Copyright (c) 2010 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.