Literature DB >> 25284528

Microleakage evaluation of class V restorations with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements.

Danielson Guedes Pontes1, Manoel Valcacio Guedes-Neto, Maria Fernanda Costa Cabral, Flávia Cohen-Carneiro.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate in vitro the marginal microleakage of conventional Glass Ionomer Cements (GIC) and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cements (RMGIC). The tested materials were grouped as follows: GIC category - G1 (Vidrion R - SSWhite); G2 (Vitro Fill - DFL); G3 (Vitro Molar - DFL); G4 (Bioglass R - Biodinâmica); and G5 (Ketac Fill - 3M/ESPE); and RMGIC category - G6 (Vitremer - 3M/ESPE); G7 (Vitro Fill LC - DFL); and G8 (Resiglass - Biodinâmica). Therefore, 80 class V cavities (2.0X2.0 mm) were prepared in bovine incisors, either in the buccal face. The samples were randomly divided into 8 groups and restored using each material tested according to the manufacturer. The root apices were then sealed with acrylic resin. The teeth were stored for 24 h in 100% humidity at 37°C. After storage, the specimens were polished with extra-slim burs and silicon disc (Soft-lex - 3M/ESPE), then were isolated with cosmetic nail polish up to 1 mm around the restoration. Then, the samples were immersed in 50% AgNO3 solution for 12 h and in a developing solution for 30 min. They were rinsed and buccal-lingual sectioned. The evaluation of the microleakage followed scores from 0 to 3. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn method test were applied (a=0.05). The results showed that there was no difference between the enamel and dentin margins. However, GIC materials presented more microleakage than RMGIC.

Entities:  

Year:  2014        PMID: 25284528

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oral Health Dent Manag        ISSN: 2247-2452


  8 in total

1.  A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage between Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer, Flowable Composite, and Cention-N in Class V Restorations: A Confocal Laser Scanning Microscope Study.

Authors:  Krishnan Venugopal; L Krishnaprasad; Prabath Singh V P; Arjun B Ravi; Kaushik Haridas; Drisya Soman
Journal:  J Pharm Bioallied Sci       Date:  2021-06-05

2.  A discussion on how to apply resin-modified glass ionomers.

Authors:  Maryam Khoroushi
Journal:  Contemp Clin Dent       Date:  2016 Jul-Sep

3.  Assessment of microleakage of class V restored by resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer and pit and fissure resin-based sealants following Er:YAG laser conditioning and acid etching: in vitro study.

Authors:  Emilie Luong; Amir Shayegan
Journal:  Clin Cosmet Investig Dent       Date:  2018-05-30

4.  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

5.  Comparison of microleakage between different restorative materials to restore marginal gap at crown margin.

Authors:  Satheesh B Haralur; Ghaseb Ahmed Al Ghaseb; Norah Ali Alqahtani; Bader Alqahtani
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-02-25       Impact factor: 2.984

6.  Reinforcing an immature tooth model using three different restorative materials.

Authors:  Pooja Misar; Hemalatha Hiremath; Chhaya Harinkhere; Shailendra S Sonawane; Vinay Sharma; Kuldeep Singh Rana
Journal:  Dent Res J (Isfahan)       Date:  2022-03-21

7.  Bond Strength and Microleakage of a Novel Glass Ionomer Cement Containing Silver Diamine Fluoride.

Authors:  Prim Auychai; Nichakorn Khumtrakoon; Chonticha Jitongart; Punnamas Daomanee; Arunee Laiteerapong
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2021-12-17

8.  Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation and Microleakage of Three Glass Ionomer-Based Class V Restorations: In Vitro Study.

Authors:  Maha M Ebaya; Ashraf I Ali; Salah H Mahmoud
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2019-12-31
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.