Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jul;15(4):205-213.

Microleakage of an Enhanced Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Restorative Material in Primary Molars

Baharan Ranjbar Omidi  1 , Fatemeh Ferdowsizadeh Naeini  2 , Hajar Dehghan  3 , Parvin Tamiz  4 , Maryam Mohammadi Savadroodbari  5 , Razieh Jabbarian  6
Affiliations

Microleakage of an Enhanced Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Restorative Material in Primary Molars

Baharan Ranjbar Omidi et al. J Dent (Tehran). 2018 Jul.

Abstract

Objectives: Resin composites, glass ionomers (GIs), or a combination of these materials have gradually replaced silver amalgam in pediatric dentistry. The purpose of this study was to compare the microleakage of Class II (box only) cavity restorations with ACTIVA Bioactive Restorative Glass, resin-modified GI (RMGI), and composite in primary molars.

Materials and methods: A total of 65 primary molars with at least one intact proximal surface were selected in this in-vitro study. After debridement of each tooth, Class II (box only) cavities were prepared. Based on the type of the restorative material and the application of etching and bonding adhesives, the samples were categorized into five groups: (1) composite; (2) RMGI (Fuji II LC)+conditioner; (3) RMGI (Fuji II LC); (4) enhanced RMGI (ACTIVA Bioactive Restorative Glass)+etching/bonding; and (5) ACTIVA Bioactive Restorative Glass. The restored teeth were thermocycled for 2000 cycles. After embedding in an acrylic resin, the degree of dye penetration at axial and gingival walls was assessed using a stereomicroscope. The data were statistically analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test.

Results: Resin-based composite (RBC) Z250 showed the least microleakage, while RMGI showed maximum microleakage at axial walls. The mean degree of microleakage at gingival margins was the lowest in RBC Z250 and ACTIVA+etching/bonding groups and the highest in RMGI+conditioner and RMGI groups.

Conclusions: The microleakage of ACTIVA Bioactive Restorative material in the absence or presence of etching and bonding could be comparable to the microleakage of composites.

Keywords: Dental Leakage; Molar; Primary Dentition; Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Qvist V, Manscher E, Teglers PT. Resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8-year results. J Dent. 2004. May;32(4):285–94. - PubMed
    1. Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T. Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials--fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation. Dent Mater. 2007. March;23(3):343–62. - PubMed
    1. Abd El Halim S, Zaki D. Comparative evaluation of microleakage among three different glass ionomer types. Oper Dent. 2011. Jan-Feb;36(1):36–42. - PubMed
    1. Delmé KI, Deman PJ, De Bruyne MA, De Moor RJ. Microleakage of four different restorative glass ionomer formulations in class V cavities: Er:YAG laser versus conventional preparation. Photomed Laser Surg. 2008. December;26(6):541–9. - PubMed
    1. Ilie N, Hickel R, Valceanu AS, Huth KC. Fracture toughness of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig. 2012. April;16(2):489–98. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources