Restorative material selection in class 5 cavities

Objective & Hypothesis:Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage values of class V cavities restored with a new self-adhesive flowable composite, compomer, and nanohybrid composite.

📊

Key Findings & Data:Methods: Standardized class 5 cavities (2x4x1.5mm) were prepared on the buccal surface of thirty human maxillary incisors.

💡

Conclusion & Impact:The restoration of class 5 cavities with flowable composite reduces microleakage.

🔬Design:Research Article

📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample

⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage values of class V cavities restored with a new self-adhesive flowable composite, compomer, and nanohybrid composite. Methods: Standardized class 5 cavities (2x4x1.5mm) were prepared on the buccal surface of thirty human maxillary incisors. Teeth were randomly assigned into three groups (n = 10): Group DEC: DyractExtra Compomer; Group EWB: Embrace WetBond Flowable Composite; Group NHC: Nano-hybrid Composite Grandio. After finishing and polishing, the teeth were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 4 weeks, immersed in a %0,05 basic fuchsine for 24 hours, and then longitudinally sectioned. Dye penetration was measured with a stereomicroscope at x50 magnification. The microleakage values were measured in micrometer (µm) unit. Results: Statistically significant differences were found between the microleakage values of the groups (p=0.046). The highest mean microleakage value was observed in group DEC (550 ± 250 µm), the lowest in group EWB (260 ± 130 µm). Conclusion: None of the restorative materials completely prevented microleakage in Class 5 restorations. The restoration of class 5 cavities with flowable composite reduces microleakage.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, yeni nesil self adeziv akışkan kompozit, kompomer ve nanohibrid kompozit ile restore edilen Sınıf 5 restorasyonların mikrosızıntı değerlerini karşılaştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Otuz adet üst santral dişin bukkal yüzeyinde standardize Sınıf 5 kavite (2x4x1.5mm) hazırlandı. Dişler rastgele üç gruba ayrıldı (n=10): Group DEC: DyractExtra Kompomer; Group EWB: Embrace WetBond Akışkan Kompozit; Group NHC: Nano-hibrid Kompozit Grandio. Bitirme ve cila işleminden sonra dişler 37°C'de distile suda 4 hafta bekletildi, %0,5 bazik fuksine batırıldı ve sonrasında aksiyel kesitler alındı. Boya penetrasyonu stereomikroskopta (X50) incelendi. Mikrosızıntı değerleri µm cinsinden hesaplandı. Bulgular: Grupların mikrosızıntı değerleri arasındaki farklılık istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulundu (p=0.046). En yüksek mikrosızıntı değeri Grup DEC'de (550 ± 250 µm) gözlenirken, en düşük değer Grup EWB'da (260 ± 130 µm) gözlemlendi. Sonuç: Restoratif materyallerin hiçbiri mikrosızıntıyı elimine edememiştir. Sınıf 5 kavitelerin yeni nesil self adeziv akışkan kompozitler ile restore edilmesi mikrosızıntıyı azaltmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

YEĞİN, E., AKPINAR, Y. Z., TOPBAŞI, B., YILMAZ, P. (2015). Restorative material selection in class 5 cavities. Selcuk Dental Journal, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 3, 101–108. https://ajindex.com/articles/301722

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

Open in New Tab ↗

↗New Tab

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

Attar N, Tam LE, and McComb D, 2003. Flow, strength, stiffness and radiopacity of flowable resin composites. Journal of canadian dental association, 69, 516-521.
Aw TC, Lepe X, Johnson GH, and Mancl L, 2004. One- year clinical evaluation of an ethanol-based and a solvent-free dentin adhesive. American journal of dentistry, 17, 451-456.
Barnes DM, Blank LW, Gingell JC, and GILNER PP, 1995. A clinical evaluation of a resin-modified: Glass ionomer restorative material. The journal of the american dental association, 126, 1245-1253.
Bedran-de-Castro A, Cardoso P, Ambrosano G, and Pimenta L, 2004. Thermal and mechanical load cycling on microleakage and shear bond strength to dentin. Operative dentistry, 29, 42-48. Berg JH, 2002. Glass ionomer cements. Pediatric dentistry, 24, 430-438.
Brackett WW, Gunnin TD, Gilpatrick RO, and Browning WD, 1998. Microleakage of class V compomer and lightcured glass ionomer restorations. The journal of prosthetic dentistry, 79, 261-263.
Brackett WW, Dib A, Brackett MG, Reyes AA, and Estrada BE, 2003. Two-year clinical performance of Class V resinmodified glass-lonomer and resin composite restorations. Oper Dent, 28, 477-481. Bulucu B, and Yavuzoğlu DS, 2001. Servikal bölgede uygulanan farklı restorasyonların kenar sızıntısı. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, 11, 14-19.
Cadenaro M, Marchesi G, Antoniolli F, Davidson C, De Stefano Dorigo E, and Breschi L, 2009. Flowability of composites is no guarantee for contraction stress reduction. Dental materials: official publication of the academy of dental materials, 25, 649-654.
Cheng JT, Itoh K, Kusunoki M, Hasegawa T, Wakumoto S, and Hisamitsu H, 2005. Effect of dentine conditioners on the bonding efficacy of one-bottle adhesives. Journal of oral rehabilitation, 32, 28-33.
Chuang SF, Liu JK, Chao CC, Liao FP, and Chen YH, 2001. Effects of flowable composite lining and operator experience on microleakage and internal voids in class II composite restorations. The journal of prosthetic dentistry, 85, 177-183.
Dayangaç B, Kompozit Rezin Restorasyonlar, 1. baskı, Güneş Kitabevi, Ankara, s: 1-20, 2000.
De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Suzuki K, Lambrechts P, and Vanherle G, 2003. Four-year water degradation of total-etch adhesives bonded to dentin. Journal of dental research, 82, 136-140.
De Munck J, Shirai K, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Suzuki K, Shintani H, and Van Meerbeek B, 2006. Effect of water storage on the bonding eff