Comparative evaluation of microleakage of a carbomer/fluoroapatite-enhanced glass-ionomer cement on primary teeth restorations
- PMID: 27759413
Comparative evaluation of microleakage of a carbomer/fluoroapatite-enhanced glass-ionomer cement on primary teeth restorations
Abstract
Aim: Carbomer cement represents a novel glass-ionomer which gradually mineralises into fluoroapatite. Purpose of this study was to evaluate microleakage around restorations in deciduous teeth made with composite resin, conventional glass-ionomer cement, resin-modified glass-ionomer cement and carbomer/fluoroapatite-enhanced glass-ionomer cement.
Materials and methods: A group of 40 primary upper canines, primary upper and lower molars was divided into 4 groups (n=10). Class I cavities were prepared by diamond cylindrical bur at high speed and were restored with a composite resin (Group 1), with a glass- ionomer cement (Group 2), with a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Group 3) and with a carbomer/fluoroapatite-enhanced glass- ionomer cement (Group 4). Hard tissue's bonding involved, in the case of composite resin a total etch bonding procedure, and in glass ionomers the use of their respective primers. Restorations were finished and polished. A 24-hour water storage was followed by thermocycling (1500 cycles, 5°C - 36°C - 55°C - 36°C with a dwell time of 15 seconds) and dye penetration test with immersion in 5% methylene blue for 24 hours. In order to assess the degree of microleakage longitudinal cuts were produced by means of a microtome at 0.5 mm and at 1 mm from the restoration margin, and photographs were taken with a stereomicroscope at 100X. Microleakage was classified according to the number of surfaces and the depth at which dye penetration was observed. Data were analysed with ANOVA and post-hoc analysis was performed with Bonferonni test (p<0.05).
Results: Statistical analysis exhibited no significant statistical difference between Group 2 and Group 3 (p>0.05). Statistical difference was exhibited between Group 3 and Group 4 (p<0.01), with Group 4 exhibiting lower microleakage values. Group 1 exhibited the lowest mean microleakage values and statistical difference in comparison with all groups (p<0.001). Group 4 exhibited the lowest microleakage values among the cements.
Conclusion: Superior marginal integrity is achieved in restored primary teeth when composite resin is used. If the clinical case suggests the use of a glass-ionomer cement, carbomer/fluoroapatite-enhanced glass-ionomer cement is prefered in terms of microleakage.
Similar articles
-
Microleakage and shear punch bond strength in class II primary molars cavities restored with low shrink silorane based versus methacrylate based composite using three different techniques.J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2010 Winter;35(2):173-81. doi: 10.17796/jcpd.35.2.u6142007hj421041. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2010. PMID: 21417120
-
Effect of various surface protections on the margin microleakage of resin-modified glass ionomer cements.J Prosthet Dent. 2001 Sep;86(3):309-14. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2001.116133. J Prosthet Dent. 2001. PMID: 11552169
-
Microleakage of Class V resin-modified glass ionomer and compomer restorations.J Prosthet Dent. 1999 May;81(5):610-5. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70217-9. J Prosthet Dent. 1999. PMID: 10220667 Clinical Trial.
-
Survival of Adhesive Restorations for Primary Molars: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis of Clinical Trials.Pediatr Dent. 2016 Oct 15;38(5):370-378. Pediatr Dent. 2016. PMID: 28206891
-
Clinical performance of glass ionomer cement and composite resin in Class II restorations in primary teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis.J Dent. 2018 Jun;73:1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.04.004. Epub 2018 Apr 9. J Dent. 2018. PMID: 29649506
Cited by
-
Prevention of secondary caries using fluoride-loaded chitosan nanoparticle-modified glass-ionomer cement.Clin Oral Investig. 2024 Aug 28;28(9):504. doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-05891-0. Clin Oral Investig. 2024. PMID: 39196417