OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of four different sandwich techniques on gingival microleakage of Class II direct composite resin restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Fifty sound human premolars were selected and randomly divided into five groups (n=10). Class II box only cavities were prepared in one of the proximal surfaces of each tooth with a gingival margin located approximately 0.5 mm below the cemento-enamel junction. Group A (control) was restored incrementally with composite resin (Tetric Ceram). Groups B, C, D, and E were restored with the sandwich technique using a compomer (Compoglass F), flowable composite resin (Tetric Flow), self-cure composite resin (Degufill SC), or resin modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC), respectively. After thermal-load cycling, the specimens were immersed in 0.5% basic fuschin for 24 hours. Dye penetration (10(-1) mm) was detected using a sectioning technique. Data were analyzed with repeated measurements and Duncan test at α=0.05. RESULTS: The least amount of microleakage was detected in the incremental group (1.28 ± 0.98). The sandwich technique using resin modified glass ionomer (7.99 ± 9.57) or compomer (4.36 ± 1.78) resulted in significantly more leakage than did the sandwich technique using flowable (1.50 ± 1.97) or self-cure composite (2.26 ± 1.52). CONCLUSION: According to the results of this study, none of the four sandwich technique composite resin restorations used in this study could reduce gingival microleakage to a greater degree than the incremental technique.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of four different sandwich techniques on gingival microleakage of Class II direct composite resin restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty sound human premolars were selected and randomly divided into five groups (n=10). Class II box only cavities were prepared in one of the proximal surfaces of each tooth with a gingival margin located approximately 0.5 mm below the cemento-enamel junction. Group A (control) was restored incrementally with composite resin (Tetric Ceram). Groups B, C, D, and E were restored with the sandwich technique using a compomer (Compoglass F), flowable composite resin (Tetric Flow), self-cure composite resin (Degufill SC), or resin modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC), respectively. After thermal-load cycling, the specimens were immersed in 0.5% basic fuschin for 24 hours. Dye penetration (10(-1) mm) was detected using a sectioning technique. Data were analyzed with repeated measurements and Duncan test at α=0.05. RESULTS: The least amount of microleakage was detected in the incremental group (1.28 ± 0.98). The sandwich technique using resin modified glass ionomer (7.99 ± 9.57) or compomer (4.36 ± 1.78) resulted in significantly more leakage than did the sandwich technique using flowable (1.50 ± 1.97) or self-cure composite (2.26 ± 1.52). CONCLUSION: According to the results of this study, none of the four sandwich technique composite resin restorations used in this study could reduce gingival microleakage to a greater degree than the incremental technique.
Authors: Hoda S Ismail; Ashraf I Ali; Rabab El Mehesen; Jelena Juloski; Franklin Garcia-Godoy; Salah H Mahmoud Journal: Restor Dent Endod Date: 2022-03-04
Authors: Leili Sadaghiani; Abdullah M Alshumrani; Hannah B Gleeson; Wayne Nishio Ayre; Alastair J Sloan Journal: Int Endod J Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 5.165