Vineet Agrawal1, Sonali Kapoor1. 1. Department of Conservative and Endodontics, M.P. Dental College and Hospital, Vadodara, India.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of the present study was to compare G-aenial, silorane, and nanoceramic composites and the effect of polyethylene fiber inserts in reducing gingival microleakage in class II composite restorations placed apical to the cementoenamel junction. METHODS: Standardized class II cavities were prepared on extracted molars and randomly divided into six groups (n = 20 each): group 1, Ceram X mono; group 2, Ceram X mono + Ribbond; group 3, Filtek P90; group 4, Filtek P90 + Ribbond; group 5, G-aenial posterior; and group 6, G-aenial posterior + Ribbond. All specimens were subjected to a thermocycling regime, immersed in 2% methylene blue dye for 24 h, sectioned longitudinally, and examined under a stereomicroscope to assess dye penetration on a six-point scale. The score data were subjected to statistical analysis, whereby the Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance was used for multiple group comparisons and the Mann-Whitney test for groupwise comparisons at a significance level of P ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: A statistically-significant decrease in microleakage was found when Ribbond fiber was used: group 2 vs group 1 (P < 0.001), group 4 vs group 3 (P < 0.001), and group 6 vs group 5 (P < 0.001). A significant decrease in microleakage scores was found in the silorane and G-aenial posterior composites when compared to the nanoceramic composite (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of polyethylene fiber, silorane composite, and G-aenial posterior composite reduces microleakage in class II composite restorations with gingival margins below the cementoenamel junction.
RCT Entities:
AIM: The aim of the present study was to compare G-aenial, silorane, and nanoceramic composites and the effect of polyethylene fiber inserts in reducing gingival microleakage in class II composite restorations placed apical to the cementoenamel junction. METHODS: Standardized class II cavities were prepared on extracted molars and randomly divided into six groups (n = 20 each): group 1, Ceram X mono; group 2, Ceram X mono + Ribbond; group 3, Filtek P90; group 4, Filtek P90 + Ribbond; group 5, G-aenial posterior; and group 6, G-aenial posterior + Ribbond. All specimens were subjected to a thermocycling regime, immersed in 2% methylene blue dye for 24 h, sectioned longitudinally, and examined under a stereomicroscope to assess dye penetration on a six-point scale. The score data were subjected to statistical analysis, whereby the Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance was used for multiple group comparisons and the Mann-Whitney test for groupwise comparisons at a significance level of P ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: A statistically-significant decrease in microleakage was found when Ribbond fiber was used: group 2 vs group 1 (P < 0.001), group 4 vs group 3 (P < 0.001), and group 6 vs group 5 (P < 0.001). A significant decrease in microleakage scores was found in the silorane and G-aenial posterior composites when compared to the nanoceramic composite (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of polyethylene fiber, silorane composite, and G-aenial posterior composite reduces microleakage in class II composite restorations with gingival margins below the cementoenamel junction.