ABSTRACT
Introduction: Restoring a proximal lesion in primary tooth has met with many challenges which has led to evolution of many materials. An alternative to Glass Ionomer Cements which has fluoride releasing capacity, offers good bond strength and is esthetic have been long looked for. Aim: This study aimed to compare the clinical performance of GIC and Cention N in proximal restorations of primary molars. Materials and Methodology: A prospective study was conducted on 154 primary molars in patients aged between 5 and 8 years using a split-mouth design. Patients were divided into two groups. Control group restored with GIC and study group received Cention N. Both groups were assessed at baseline 3, 6 and 9 months according to Ryge criteria and data was statistically analysed using Fisher's Exact. Results: Statistically significant difference was found between GIC and Cention N restorations for color match at baseline and color stability at 3 months (P < 0.001), while the other parameters did not show any significant difference among the two restorative materials. Conclusion: Cention N can be used as a suitable alternative to GIC for restoring Class II restorations in primary molars.
ABSTRACT
RESUMEN Introducción: La industria odontológica está en constante evolución respecto a la concreción de materiales dentales que mejoren la calidad de vida. Sin embargo, debido al gran número de estos, es imprescindible realizar comparaciones de propiedades biomecánicas que definan los de mejor rendimiento. Objetivo: Identificar las ventajas y desventajas del material de restauración Cention-N, con respecto a la resina compuesta, el ionómero de vidrio y la amalgama. Métodos: Se hizo una investigación bibliográfica en las bases PubMed, Scielo, Semantic Scholar, ScienceDirect, Medigraphyc y Redalyc. Se usaron como palabras clave: Cention-N, material restaurativo, amalgama, resina compuesta, el ionómero de vidrio; combinadas con operadores booleanos AND y OR. Se seleccionaron artículos originales y de revisión, entre otros documentos, para examinar 4 características: microfiltración, dureza, rugosidad superficial y resistencia al cizallamiento. El 50 % de los artículos escogidos se publicaron en los últimos 5 años. Resultados: Se seleccionaron un total de 13 artículos, 1 página web y 1 libro, acorde con los filtros de selección y objetivo de investigación. El Cention-N, con respecto a los demás materiales considerados, presentó menor puntuación de microfiltración (0,28 ± 0,18), mayor dureza (77 N/mm2), menor rugosidad (442,98 ± 62,45 nm) y mayor resistencia al cizallamiento (14,38 ± 3,88 MPa). Resta evaluar sus propiedades mecánicas ante procedimientos abrasivos como el blanqueamiento dental y a cargas altas como en el bruxismo. Conclusión: Cention-N es una opción prometedora como material restaurador del sector posterior al evidenciar una menor microfiltración y rugosidad; así como mayor resistencia al cizallamiento y dureza, en comparación con otros materiales restaurativos estudiados.
ABSTRACT Introduction: Dental industry is constantly evolving regarding the realization of dental materials that improve the quality of life. However, due to the large number of these, it is essential to perform intercomparisons of biomechanical properties that define those with the best performance. Objective: To identify the advantages and disadvantages of Cention-N restorative material with respect to composite resin, glass ionomer and amalgam. Methods: A bibliographic search was made in the PubMed, Scielo, Semantic Scholar, ScienceDirect, Medigraphyc and Redalyc databases. The following keywords were used: Cention-N, restorative material, amalgam, composite resin, the glass ionomer; combined with Boolean AND and OR operators. Original and review articles, among other documents, were chosen to examine 4 characteristics: microfiltration, hardness, surface roughness and shear resistance. 50% of the articles are from the last 5 years. Results: A total of 13 articles, 1 webpage and 1 book, were found according to the selection filters and research objective. The Cention-N, with respect to the other materials considered, presented a lower microfiltration score (0,28 ± 0,18); higher hardness (77 N/mm2); lower roughness (442,98 ± 62,45 nm) and higher shear strength (14,38 ± 3,88 MPa). However, it remains to evaluate its mechanical properties before abrasive procedures such as teeth whitening and at high loads such as bruxism. Conclusion: Cention-N is a promising option as a posterior sector restorative material as it shows less microfiltration and roughness; as well as greater resistance to shear and hardness, compared to other restorative materials studied.
ABSTRACT
Aim: To compare the microleakage of Cention N, a subgroup of composite resins with a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) and a composite resin. Methods: Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 46 extracted human molars. The teeth were randomly assigned to four groups. Group A: Tetric N-Bond etch-and-rinse adhesive and Tetric N-Ceram nanohybrid composite resin, group B: Cention N without adhesive, group C: Cention N with adhesive, and group D: Fuji II LC RMGI. The teeth were thermocycled between 5°-55°C (×10,000). The teeth were coated with two layers of nail vanish except for 1 mm around the restoration margins, and immersed in 2% methylene blue (37°C, 24 h) before buccolingual sectioning to evaluate dye penetration under a stereomicroscope (×20). The data were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests (α=0.05). Results: Type of material and restoration margin had significant effects on the microleakage (p<0.05). Dentin margins showed a higher leakage score in all groups. Cention N and RMGI groups showed significant differences at the enamel margin (p=0.025, p=0.011), and for the latter group the scores were higher. No significant difference was found at the dentin margins between the materials except between Cention N with adhesive and RMGI (p=0.031). Conclusion: Microleakage was evident in all three restorative materials. Cention N groups showed similar microleakage scores to the composite resin and displayed lower microleakage scores compared with RMGI
Subject(s)
Composite Resins , Dental Leakage , Glass Ionomer Cements , Molar, ThirdABSTRACT
Background: Marginal adaptability of restorative material is one of the prime factors for success of a restoration. Aim: To evaluate microleakage at enamel restoration and dentin restoration interface of Class V cavities restored with new alkasite restorative material Cention-N, with and without using bonding agent and flowable composite resin. Materials and Methods: Thirty Class V tooth preparations were divided into three groups (n = 10): Group-I restored with Cention-N (Ivoclar Vivadent) without adhesive, Group-II was restored with Cention-N after application of eighth-generation bonding agent (3M ESPE, Single Bond Universal Adhesive), and Group-III was restored with flowable composite resin (Tetric-N-Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent). All samples were subjected to 200 thermocycles between temperature baths at 5°C and 55°C. All samples were cut longitudinally through the center of the restorations with the help of isomet diamond saw. The sections were then observed under binocular stereomicroscope at 20×. Two evaluators scored the depth of dye penetration independently at enamel and dentin margins. Statistical Analysis: Kruskal–Wallis nonparametric analysis followed by Dunn's multiple comparison tests were done to evaluate differences among the experimental groups. Mann–Whitney test was used to compare the difference between occlusal and gingival scores within each restoration. Results: Microleakage seen in decreasing order: Cention-N without adhesive >Flowable composite >Cention-N with adhesive. Conclusion: Microleakage at enamel restoration interface was less than microleakage at dentin restoration interface of each group, but the difference was not statistically significant. Least microleakage was seen with Cention-N with adhesive followed by flowable composite. More microleakage was seen with Cention-N without adhesive.
ABSTRACT
Aim: The aim of the study is to compare the microleakage of three different direct restorative materials (amalgam [AA], glass ionomer cements [GICs], and Cention N [CN]) in Class II restorations using stereomicroscope. Materials and Methods: A standardized Class II cavity preparation was made involving the proximal and occlusal surfaces. All prepared samples were randomly divided into 3 experimental groups, with 10 teeth each according to the restoration material used: Group I-AA; Group II-GICs; and Group III-CN. The restored teeth were stored for 24 h in distilled water and thermocycled for 500 cycles between 5°C and 55°C with a dwell time of 30 s in each bath. Samples were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye for 24 h. The teeth were sectioned along the mesiodistal direction. The dye penetration of the occlusal and gingival margins of each section was evaluated independently by the observer using a stereomicroscope. Results: Statistical analysis revealed lower microleakage scores in GIC and CN. Higher microleakage was observed in Group AA. Mean microleakage score of Group-I (AA) was the highest of all groups. Mean microleakage score of Group-III (CN) was the lowest of all groups. As per the critical differences (CD), the mean microleakage score of Group-III CN) was significantly lower than that of Group-I (AA), Group-II (GIC) (P < 0.01). There is no significant difference between the mean microleakage score of Group-I (AA) and Group-II (GIC). Conclusion: Out of all the restorative materials, CN a newer restorative material displayed minimum microleakage compared to AA and GICs.