Comparison of microleakage of an alkasite restorative material, a composite resin and a resin-modified glass ionomer
Braz. j. oral sci
; 20: e213981, jan.-dez. 2021. ilus
Article
in En
| BBO, LILACS
| ID: biblio-1254747
Responsible library:
BR218.1
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 RMGIKey words
Full text:
1
Index:
LILACS
Main subject:
Composite Resins
/
Dental Leakage
/
Glass Ionomer Cements
/
Molar, Third
Language:
En
Journal:
Braz. j. oral sci
Journal subject:
ODONTOLOGIA
Year:
2021
Type:
Article