Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi / 2003 / Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 3

Comparison of marginal leakage of composite and ceramic inlay and direct composite restorations

Kompozit ve seramik inleyler ile direk kompozit restorasyonların marjinal sızıntılarının karşılaştırılması

Pages
177–185
Publication Date
2022-10-10
DOI
—
🏛️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)

As a conclusion, the composite and ceramic inlay restorations were found more succesful than direct applied posterior composite restorations in preventing marginal leakage.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage in class V cavities restored with ceramic inlay, composite May and direct composite restorations.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Ali samples w er e thermocycled 500 times.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a conclusion, the composite and ceramic inlay restorations were found more succesful than direct applied posterior composite restorations in preventing marginal leakage.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage in class V cavities restored with ceramic inlay, composite May and direct composite restorations. Standart Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces offourtyfourpremolar teeth. Cavities vere restored with ceramic inlay materials (Vitadur Alpha), composite inlays (Estenia) and two different composite resin (Clearfil Photo Posterior, Aelite). The restorations were luted with a dual cured resin cement (Panavia F). Dentin bonding systems (Clearfil SE Bond, One-Step Plus) were used with the direct composite restorations. Ali samples w er e thermocycled 500 times. The teeth were then subjected to dye penetration and scored under a stereomicroscope. The results of this study showed tlıat the microleakage at the dentin margins was greater than those of the enamel margins (p0.05). At the dentinal margins, statistical analysis showed no significant difference between the two composite restoration groups (p>0.05). in general, microleakage of composite restorations was greater than those of inlay restorations (p0.05). As a conclusion, the composite and ceramic inlay restorations were found more succesful than direct applied posterior composite restorations in preventing marginal leakage.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı seramik inley, kompozit inley ve posterior kompozitlerin 5. sınıf kavitelerdeki sızıntılarını değerlendirmektir. 44 adet premolar dişin vestibül ve lingual köle bölgesinde standart 5. sınıf kaviteler hazırlandı. Bu çalışmada kullanılan seramik inleyler (Vitadur Alpha), kompozit inleyler (Estenia) ve iki farklı markada kompozit rezin (Clearfil Photo Posterior, Aelite) kavitelere uyg0ulandı, inleyler dual sertleşen bir rezin siman ile (Panavia F) yapıştırıldı. Direkt kompozit rezinler kendi dentin bonding sistemleri ile (Clearfil SE Bond, One Step Plus) kullanıldı. Örneklere 500 kez termalsiklus uygulandı. Dişler boya penetrasyonuna tabi tutulduktan sonra vertikal olarak ikiye ayrıldı ve sızıntı skorları bir stereomikroskop yardımıyla skorlandı. Bu çalışmanın sonuçları dentin marjinlerindeki mikro sızıntının mine marjinlerinden daha fazla olduğunu gösterdi (p0.05). Dentin marjinlerinde kompozit grupları arasında istatistiksel olarak önemli bir fark olmadığı görüldü (p>0.05). Genel olarakda kompozitlerin mikrosızıntısı inley restorasyonlarınkinden daha fazlaydı (p0.05). Sonuç olarak, kompozit ve seramik inley restorasyonların marjinal mikrosızıntıyı önleme açısından direkt uygulanan posterior kompozit materyallerden daha başarılı sonuçlar verdiği görüldü.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZER, F., ŞENGÜN, A., ÖZTÜRK, B., ÖZTÜRK, N. (2022). Comparison of marginal leakage of composite and ceramic inlay and direct composite restorations. Ankara Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 3, 177–185. https://ajindex.com/articles/442260

References (18)

  1. Kidd EA. Microleakage: A review. J Dent 1976; 4: 199-208
  2. Retief DH. Do adhesives prevent microlekage. Int Dent J 1994; 44: 19-26
  3. Alani AH, Ton CG. Detection of microleakage around dental restorations: A review. Oper Dent 1997; 22: 173-85
  4. Krejici I, Lutz F, Reimer M, Heinzmann JL. Wear of ceramic inlays, their enamel antagonists and luting cements. J Prosthet Dent 1993; 69: 225-9
  5. Savitt ED, Malement KA, Socransky SS, Melcer AJ, Backmann KJ. Effect of colonization of oral microbia by a cast glass ceramic restoration. Int J Period Rest Dent 1987; 7: 23-30
  6. Audenino G, Bresciano ME. In vitro evaluation of fit of adhesively luted ceramic inlays. Int J Prosthodont 1999; 12: 342-7
  7. Ferrari M, Dagostin A, Fabianelli A. Marginal integrity of ceramic inlays luted with a selfcuring resin system. Dent Mater 2002 (Basımda)
  8. Bottt B, Hannig M. Effect of different luting materials on the marginal adaptation of Class I ceramic inlay restorations in vitro. Dent Mater 2002 (Basımda)
  9. Korale ME, Meiers JC. Microleakage of dentin bonding systems used with spherical and admixed amalgams. Am J Dent. 1996; 9: 249-52
  10. Hahn P, Attin T, Gröfke M, Hellwig E. Influence of resin cement viscosity on microleakage of ceramic inlays. Dent Mater 2001; 17: 191-6
  11. Al-Ehaideb AA, Mohammed H. Microleakage of "One Bottle" dentin adhesives. Oper Dent 2001; 26: 172-5
  12. Leevailoj C, Cochran MA, Matis Bai Moore BK, Platt JA. Microleakage of posterior packable resin composite with and without flowable liners. Oper Dent 2001; 26: 302-7
  13. Tulunoğlu Ö, Üçtaşlı M, Alaçam A, Ömürlü H. Microleakage of light-cured resin and resinmodified glass-ionomer dentin bonding agents applied with co-cure vs pre-cure technique. Oper Dent 2000; 25: 292-8
  14. Carvalho RM, Pereira JC, Yoshiyama M, Pashley DH. A review of polymerization contraction: The influence of stress development versus stress relief. Oper Dent 1996; 21: 17-24
  15. Fitchie JG, Reeves GW, Scarbrough AR, Hembree JH. Microlekage of two new dentinal bonding systems. Quintessence Int 1990; 21: 749-52
  16. Armstrong SR, Keller JC, Boyer DB the influence of water storage and C-factor on the dentin-resin composite microtensile bond strength and debond pathway utilizing a filled and unfilled adhesive Dent Mater 2001; 17: 268- 76
  17. Labella R, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G. Polymerization shrinkage and elasticity of flowable composites and filled adhesives. Dent Mater 1999;15: 128-37
  18. Craig RG, Pow