Umesh Kumar1, Charan Kamal Kaur Dharmani2, Shamsher Singh3, Ajay Logani4, Naseem Shah5. 1. Ex-PG, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) , India . 2. Senior Resident, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) , India . 3. Reader, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Vyas Dental College & Hospital , Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India . 4. Associate Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) , India . 5. Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) , India .
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microleakage in class V Glass Ionomer Cement(GIC) or composite restorations at enamel or cementum margins has been cited as a reason for their failure. Air abrasion has been used to precondition tooth surface for increasing retention of such restorations. This study is done to evaluate the effect of preconditioning with air abrasion on microleakage in class V GIC and composite restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Class V cavities were prepared in 40 freshly extracted teeth. They were categorised into following four groups (n=10) depending on cavity preconditioning and restoration. Group I: 10% polyacrylic acid and GI (Ketac molar TM 3M ESPE); Group II: AA and GI; Group III: 35% Phosphoric acid and micro filled composite (MC) (Heliomolar, Ivoclar Vivadent); Group IV: AA and MC. Each group was further divided into subgroups A (no loading) & B (cyclic loading). Microleakage at occlusal and gingival margins was evaluated using methylene blue dye penetration method. Statistical analysis was done using Kruskal-wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Microleakage at cementum margins was higher than at enamel margins in all the groups. Preconditioning with AA resulted in increased micro leakage. CONCLUSION: AA as a preconditioning agent was ineffective in producing superior tooth-restoration bonding.
BACKGROUND: Microleakage in class V Glass Ionomer Cement(GIC) or composite restorations at enamel or cementum margins has been cited as a reason for their failure. Air abrasion has been used to precondition tooth surface for increasing retention of such restorations. This study is done to evaluate the effect of preconditioning with air abrasion on microleakage in class V GIC and composite restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Class V cavities were prepared in 40 freshly extracted teeth. They were categorised into following four groups (n=10) depending on cavity preconditioning and restoration. Group I: 10% polyacrylic acid and GI (Ketac molar TM 3M ESPE); Group II: AA and GI; Group III: 35% Phosphoric acid and micro filled composite (MC) (Heliomolar, Ivoclar Vivadent); Group IV: AA and MC. Each group was further divided into subgroups A (no loading) & B (cyclic loading). Microleakage at occlusal and gingival margins was evaluated using methylene blue dye penetration method. Statistical analysis was done using Kruskal-wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Microleakage at cementum margins was higher than at enamel margins in all the groups. Preconditioning with AA resulted in increased micro leakage. CONCLUSION: AA as a preconditioning agent was ineffective in producing superior tooth-restoration bonding.
Entities:
Keywords:
Air abrasion; Class V cavity; Dye penetration method