SavedAdd your journal

Journals / European Journal of Research in Dentistry / 2013 / Volume: 1 Issue: 2

The Effect of Different Liners on the Microleakege of Class II Restorations after Thermocyclign and Occlusal Loading

-

Suat Özcan
İhsan Yıkılgan
Oya Bala
Mine Üçtaşlı
Hüma Ömürlü
Pages
—
Publication Date
2014-12-19
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusions: Flowable composite and RMGI liners were useful in decreasing microleakage, but the self-adhesive flowable composite liner showed no significant advantage.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: We evaluated in vitro marginal adaptation of class II resin composite restorations with and without a liner.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: In total, 48 extracted sound human mandibular molars were used.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusions: Flowable composite and RMGI liners were useful in decreasing microleakage, but the self-adhesive flowable composite liner showed no significant advantage.
🔬Design:Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Microleakage · liner · occlusal loading

Abstract

Objective: We evaluated in vitro marginal adaptation of class II resin composite restorations with and without a liner. Materials and Methods: In total, 48 extracted sound human mandibular molars were used. The teeth were prepared following a standardized pattern for a class II cavity. The teeth were then randomly divided into four groups of 12 teeth each: group 1: resinmodified glass ionomer liner (RMGI) + composite resin (CR), group 2: flowable composite liner + CR, group 3: self-adhesive flowable composite liner + CR, and group 4: CR. The specimens were thermocycled and loaded with a mechanical loading device. The methylene blue dye penetration test was used to evaluate microleakage. Results: When specimens were evaluated for occlusal and gingival microleakage, the resin-modified and flowable composite groups showed significantly less microleakage than the control group with no liner. The self-adhesive flowable composite group showed no significant improvement. Conclusions: Flowable composite and RMGI liners were useful in decreasing microleakage, but the self-adhesive flowable composite liner showed no significant advantage.

Özet

-

🔖

Cite This Article

Özcan, S., Yıkılgan, İ., Bala, O., Üçtaşlı, M., Ömürlü, H. (2014). The Effect of Different Liners on the Microleakege of Class II Restorations after Thermocyclign and Occlusal Loading. European Journal of Research in Dentistry, Volume: 1 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.12990/ MDJ.201317715

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (40)

  1. Braga RR, Ballester RY, Ferracane JL. Factors involved in the development of polymerization shrinkage stress in resin- composites: a systematic review. Dent Mater. 2005; 21:962-70.
  2. Jackson RD, Morgan M. The new posterior resins and a simplified placement technique. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000; 131:375-83.
  3. Leevailoj C, Cochran MA, Matis BA, Moore BK, Platt JA. Microleakage of posterior packable resin composites with and without flowable liners. Oper Dent. 2001; 26:302-7.
  4. Statement on posterior resin-based composites. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs; ADA Council on Dental Benefit Programs. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998;129:1627-8.
  5. Belli S, Inokoshi S, Ozer F, Pereira PN, Ogata M, Tagami J. The effect of additional enamel etching and a flowable composite to the interfacial integrity of Class II adhesive composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2001;26:70-75.
  6. Ernst CP, Canbek K, Aksogan K, Willershausen B. Two-year clinical performance of a packable posterior composite with and without a flowable composite liner. Clin Oral Invest. 2003;7:129-134.
  7. Feilzer AJ, Dooren LH, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Influence of light intensity on polymerization shrinkage and integrity of restoration-cavity interface. Eur J Oral Sci. 1995;103:322-6.
  8. Lutz F, Krejci I, Barbakow F. Quality and durability of marginal adaptation in bonded composite restorations. Dent Mater. 1991;7:107-13.
  9. Sano H, Shono T, Takatsu T, Hosoda H. Microporous dentin zone beneath resin-impregnated layer. Oper Dent. 1994;19:59-64.
  10. Van Meerbeek B, Perdigao J, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. The clinical performance of adhesives. J Dent. 1998;26:1-20.
  11. Gueders AM, Charpentier JF, Albert AI, Geerts SO. Microleakage after thermocycling of 4 etch and rinse and 3 self-etch adhesives with and without a flowable composite lining. Oper Dent. 2006;31:450-5.
  12. Knezevic A, Tarle Z, Meniga A, Sutalo J, Pichler G, Ristic M. Degree of conversion and temperature rise during polymerization of composite resin samples with blue diodes. J Oral Rehabil. 2001;28:586-91.
  13. Mullejans R, Lang H, Schuler N, Baldawi MO, Raab WH. Increment technique for extended Class V restorations: an experimental study. Oper Dent. 2003;28:352-6.
  14. Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Complete marginal seal of Class V resin composite restorations effected by increased flexibility. J Dent Res. 1990;69:1240-3.
  15. Haak R, Wicht MJ, Noack MJ. Marginal and internal adaptation of extended class I restorations lined with flowable composites. J Dent. 2003;31:231-239.
  16. Bowen R. Reduction of microleakage around composite restoration. J Dent Res. 1987;66:246.
  17. Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry. The glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J. 1972;132:133-5.
  18. Berg JH. Glass ionomer cements. Pediatr Dent. 2002;24:430-8.
  19. Aboushala A, Kugel G, Hurley E. Class II composite resin restorations using glass-ionomer liners: microleakage studies. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1996;21:67-70.
  20. Kasraei S, Azarsina M, Majidi S. In vitro comparison of microleakage of posterior resin composites with and without liner using two-step etch-and-rinse and self-etch dentin adhesive systems. Oper Dent. 2011;36:213-21.
  21. Wajdowicz MN, Vandewalle KS, Means MT. Shear bond strength of new self-adhesive flowable composite resins. Gen Dent. 2012 Mar-Apr;60(2):e104-8.)
  22. Poitevin A, De Munck J, Van Ende A, Suyama Y, Mine A, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B. Bonding effectiveness of self- adhesive composites to dentin and enamel. Dent Mater. 2013 Feb;29(2):221-30
  23. Bektas OO, Eren D, Akın EG, Akın H. Evaluation of a self- adhering flowable composite in terms of micro-shear bond strength and microleakage. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013 May- Jul;71(3-4):541-6
  24. Margvelashvili M, Vichi A, Carrabba M, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Bond strength to unground enamel and sealing ability in pits and fissures of a new self-adhering flowable resin composite. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2013 Summer;37(4):397-402
  25. Bagıs YH, Baltacıoglu IH, Kahyaogulları S. Comparing Microleakage and the Layering Methods of Silorane-based Resin Composite in Wide Class II MOD Cavities. Oper Dent. 2009, 34-5, 578-585.
  26. Amaral CM, Hara AT, Pimenta LA, Rodrigues AL, Jr. Microleakage of hydrophilic adhesive systems in Class V composite restorations. Am J Dent. 2001;14:31-3.
  27. Costa Pfeifer CS, Braga RR, Cardoso PE. Influence of cavity dimensions, insertion technique and adhesive system on microleakage of Class V restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137:197-202.
  28. Krejci I, Sparr D, Lutz F. Three-layer light hardening procedure with traditional composites for Black Class II restorations. Quintessence Int. 1987;38:1217-29.
  29. Manhart J, Chen HY, Mehl A, Weber K, Hickel R. Marginal quality and microleakage of adhesive class V restorations. J Dent. 2001;29:123-30.
  30. Deveaux E, Hildelbert P, Neut C, Boniface B, Romond C. Bacterial microleakage of Cavit, IRM, and TERM. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1992;74:634-643.
  31. Eden E, Topaloglu-Ak A, Cuijpers V, Frencken JE. Micro-CT for measuring marginal leakage of Class II resin composite restorations in primary molars prepared in vivo. Am J Dent. 2008;21:393-397.
  32. Pradelle-Plasse N, Wenger F, Picard B, Colon P. Evaluation of microleakage of composite resin restorations by an electrochemical technique: the impedance methodology. Dent Mater. 2004;20:425-434.
  33. Prati C, Tao L, Simpson M, Pashley DH. Permeability and microleakage of Class II resin composite restorations. J Dent. 1994;22:49-56.
  34. Tredwin CJ, Stokes A, Moles DR. Influence of flowable liner and margin location on microleakage of conventional and packable class II resin composites. Oper Dent. 2005;30:32-38.
  35. Tung FF, Estafan D, Scherer W. Microleakage of a condensable resin composite: an in vitro investigation. Quintessence Int. 2000;31:430-4.
  36. Arora V, Kundabala M, Parolia A, Thomas MS, Pai V. Comparison of the shear bond strength of RMGIC to a resin composite using different adhesive systems: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2010;13:80-3.
  37. Marquezan M, Fagundes TC, Toledano M, Navarro MF, Osorio R. Differential bonds degradation of two resin- modified glass-ionomer cements in primary and permanent teeth. J Dent. 2009;37:857-64.
  38. Kim YG, Hirano S. Setting shrinkage and hygroscopic expansion of resin-modified glass-ionomer in experimental cylindrical cavities. Dent Mater J. 1999;18:63-75.
  39. Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift EJ, Jr., Stamatiades P, Wilkerson M. A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998;129:567-9.
  40. Fu J, Kakuda S, Pan F, Hoshika S, Ting S, Fukuoka A, Bao Y, Ikeda T, Nakaoki Y, Selimovic D, Sano H, Sidhu SK. Bonding performance of a newly developed step-less all-in-one system on dentin. Dent Mater J. 2013;32(2):203-11.