ABSTRACT
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Resin-modified (light-cured) glass ionomer and polyacid-modified composite resin (compomer) restorations are popular choices for the restoration of root caries and cervical abrasion/erosion lesions, but clinical studies are relatively few and have been published primarily as abstracts. PURPOSE: In the absence of adequate clinical data, the marginal integrity of restorations of the above two types of material was compared in vitro. The microleakage of restorations of two light-cured glass ionomer restorative materials and of one compomer material was evaluated. METHODS AND MATERIAL: Restorations of the three materials were placed in facial and lingual Class V cavity preparations in bovine incisors. All preparations were centered on the cementoenamel junction and were prepared with 45-degree enamel bevels. After thermal cycling, teeth were immersed in methylene blue dye, then sections of the restorations (n = 16) were visually evaluated. RESULTS: Dye penetration was observed at approximately 20% of restoration margins for all three materials, with the greatest incidence of severe leakage in the compomer restorations. CONCLUSION: No significant difference in microleakage among the three materials (ANOVA; p > 0.05) was found.
Subject(s)
Compomers , Composite Resins , Dental Leakage , Dental Restoration, Permanent/methods , Glass Ionomer Cements , Animals , Cattle , Dental Marginal Adaptation , Methacrylates , SilicatesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of three finishing methods on the microleakage of Class V hybrid resin composite. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Facial and lingual Class V cavities were prepared at the cemento-enamel junction of bovine incisors. Restorations of the two materials (Z100; Prodigy) were placed, using the supplied dentin-adhesives (Scotchbond Multipurpose; OptiBond FL, respectively). Finishing methods were carbide (C) and diamond (D) finishing instruments operated at high-speed, and finishing disks (S). After thermal cycling, the teeth were immersed in methylene blue dye, then sections of the restored teeth (n = 12) were visually assessed for leakage. RESULTS: No leakage was observed at the resin-enamel interface in any restoration. At gingival margins, the incidence of leakage (slight/severe) was: Z100 D = 4/3, C = 5/3, S = 2/0; Prodigy D = 3/0, C = 2/4, S = 3/2. The greatest incidence of leakage was observed in restorations finished with carbide finishing burs. A two-way ANOVA of leakage data rankings showed no significant difference among the three methods (P = 0.07) or between the two materials (P = 0.55), and no significant interaction of material and finishing method (P = 0.07).
Subject(s)
Composite Resins/therapeutic use , Dental Leakage/etiology , Dental Polishing/adverse effects , Dental Polishing/methods , Dental Restoration, Permanent , Silicon Dioxide/therapeutic use , Zirconium/therapeutic use , Analysis of Variance , Animals , Cattle , Dental Caries/therapy , Dental Marginal Adaptation , Dental Polishing/instrumentation , Dental Restoration, Permanent/classification , In Vitro Techniques , Incisor , Materials Testing/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
The microleakage of three glass-ionomer restorative materials, one chemically cured and two light cured, was evaluated. Ten restorations of each material were placed, according to manufacturer's instructions, in Class V cavities in bovine incisors. All cavities were prepared with 90-degree cavosurface margins and were located at the cementoenamel junction. Sectioning of the teeth after thermocycling and immersion in methylene blue dye revealed only occasional slight leakage and no statistically significant difference among the three materials.
