| Literature DB >> 25024839 |
Homayoun Alaghemand1, Faezeh Abolghasemzadeh2, Farzaneh Pakdel3, Reza Judi Chelan4.
Abstract
Background and aims. Microleakage is still one of the major problems of composite-based restorations.This study compared the microleakage and thickness of resin cement in ceramic inlays with various temperatures. Materials and methods. Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual aspects of thirty human molars with occlusal margins in enamel and gingival margins in dentin (3 mm wide, 5 mm long and 2 mm deep). Laboratory-made inlays (LMI) were used for buccal cavities, and CAD/CAM inlays (CMI) were used for lingual cavities. All the cavities were divided into six groups (n=10): 1) LMI at -5°C; 2) LMI at 50°C; 3) LMI at room temperature (25°C); 4) CMI at -5°C; 5) CMI at 50°C; 6) CMI at room temperature (25°C). Inlays were bonded to cavities in a pulp pressure- and temperature-simulating device. After thermocycling and dye penetration, the teeth were divided into two mesiodistal halves. Amount of dye penetration and film thickness were measured under a stereomicroscope and analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon and Spearman's correlation tests ( = 0.05). Results. There were no statistically significant differences in leakage between different inlay temperatures (P > 0.05). The mean cement thickness in laboratory-made inlays (gingival margin, 83.7 ± 11 and occlusal margin, 84.7 ± 19) was greater than that in CAD/CAM inlays (gingival margin, 69 ± 16 and occlusal margin, 84.7 ± 16). No correlation was found be-tween cement thickness and microleakage either in enamel or dentin for any of the ceramic systems. Conclusion. Differences in inlay temperature had no effect on microleakage. CAD/CAM inlays had lower cement thickness than laboratory-made inlays, but this was not related to their microleakage.Entities:
Keywords: CAD-CAM; ceramic; film thickness,; microleakage
Year: 2014 PMID: 25024839 PMCID: PMC4091699 DOI: 10.5681/joddd.2014.008
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects ISSN: 2008-210X
Figure 1.Composition of materials used for this study according to manufacturer’s data
| Material | Manufacturer | Type | Composition |
| Panavia F2.0 | Kuraray Co., | Dual-cure | ED Primer A: HEMA, 10-MDP, 5-NMSA |
| Osaka, Japan | adhesive system | ED Primer B: 5-NMSA | |
| Paste A: 10-MDP, Bis-GMA, filler, benzoyl peroxide, photoinitiator Panavia F2.0 Osaka, Japan adhesive system Paste B: Bis-GMA, filler, Sodium fluoride, amine | |||
| Margin Bond | Coltene/Whaledent, Switzerland | Unfilled resin | BISGMA:35-40 % |
| TEGDMA: 20-25 % | |||
| Silane | Ultradent Dental Co, South Jordan, Utah, USA | Porcelain primer | Methacryloxy propyltrimethoxy silane:5-15% Ethanol:87% |
| Hydrofluoric Acid | ultradent Dental Co, South Jordan, Utah, USA | Porcelain etchant | Hydrofluoric Acid: 9.5% |
| HEMA: 2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate | |||
| 10-MDP: 10-Methacryloyloxy decyl dihydrogenphosphate | |||
| 5-NMSA: N-methacryloyl 5-aminosalicylic acid | |||
| Bis-GMA: Bisphenol glycidyl methacrylate | |||
| TEDGMA: Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate | |||
Comparison of microleakage at occlusal and gingival margins between CAD/CAM and laboratory-made inlay groups
| Microleakage mean | ||||
| -5°C | 50°C | 25°C | P | |
| Gingival margin (LMI) | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0.29 |
| Gingival margin (CMI) | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0.21 |
| Occlusal margin (LMI) | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0.83 |
| Occlusal margin (CMI) | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0.27 |
| LMI: laboratory made inlays | ||||