International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 5 ( September-October, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of Immediate and Delayed Microleakage of Class V Cavities Restored with Chitosan-incorporated Composite Resins: An In Vitro Study

Arpita Deb, Veena Pai, Roopa R Nadig

Keywords : Dye extraction, Hybrid composite, Microhybrid composite, Microleakage, Resin-based composites

Citation Information : Deb A, Pai V, Nadig RR. Evaluation of Immediate and Delayed Microleakage of Class V Cavities Restored with Chitosan-incorporated Composite Resins: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021; 14 (5):621-627.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2043

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 20-11-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim and objective: To evaluate and compare the microleakage of unmodified microhybrid composite and 0.2% chitosan-incorporated composite in class V cavities restored immediately and after 3 months of storage in artificial saliva. Materials and methods: Sixty human permanent maxillary premolars were collected and standardized class V cavity prepared on the buccal surface of each tooth with dimensions: mesiodistally 3 mm, occluso cervically 2 mm, and depth of 1.5 mm and restored with microhybrid composite and chitosan-incorporated composite resins respectively and randomly divided: Group I: control-microhybrid composite (n = 30): (a) 15 teeth tested immediately (b) 15 teeth tested after 3 months. Group II–restored with chitosan + composite (n = 30): (a) 15 teeth tested immediately (b) 15 teeth tested after 3 months. Specimens were stored in artificial saliva following which a dye extraction test was carried out using a spectrophotometer. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in microleakage score between the chitosan-composite group and unmodified composite group when evaluated immediately after placing the restoration. Microleakage values of the unmodified composite group increased significantly after 3 months of storage in artificial saliva and values of the chitosan-composite group did not differ significantly even after 3 months of storage. Microleakage was seen significantly less in the chitosan-composite group compared to the unmodified composite group after 3 months of storage in artificial saliva. Conclusion: It can be concluded that chitosan-incorporated composite seems to have improved mechanical properties and forms a more stable bond when compared with unmodified microhybrid composite in addition to being antibacterial. Clinical significance: Considering the advantageous properties of this material, it may be clinically useful in restoring class V cavities in patients with high caries risk. However, further in vitro and in vivo studies need to be carried out.

  1. Lagerweij MD, van Loveren C. Declining caries trends: are we satisfied? Curr Oral Health Rep 2015;2(4):212–217. DOI: 10.1007/s40496-015-0064-9.
  2. Namita RR. Adolescent rampant caries. Contemp Clin Dent 2012;3(Suppl1):S122. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.95122.
  3. dos Reis Perez C, Gonzalez MR, Prado NA, et al. Restoration of noncarious cervical lesions: when, why, and how. Int J Dentis 2012;2012:687058.
  4. Priyalakshmi S, Ranjan M. A review on marginal deterioration of composite restoration. J Dent Med Sci 2014;13(1):6–9.
  5. Aydin Sevinç B, Hanley L. Antibacterial activity of dental composites containing zinc oxide nanoparticles. J Biomed Mat Res Part B: Appl Biomater 2010;94(1):22–31. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.31620.
  6. Sousa RP, Zanin IC, Lima JP, et al. In situ effects of restorative materials on dental biofilm and enamel demineralisation. J Dent 2009;37(1):44–51. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.08.009.
  7. Mirani SA, Sangi L, Kumar N, et al. Investigating the antibacterial effect of chitosan in dental resin composites: a pilot study. Pakistan Oral Dent J 2015;35(2):304–306.
  8. Kim JS, Shin DH. Inhibitory effect on Streptococcus mutans and mechanical properties of the chitosan containing composite resin. Restorat Dentis Endodon 2013;38(1):36–42. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.36.
  9. Imazato S. Antibacterial properties of resin composites and dentin bonding systems. Dent Mater 2003;19(6):449–457. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(02)00102-1.
  10. Casadidio C, Peregrina DV, Gigliobianco MR, et al. Chitin and chitosans: characteristics, eco-friendly processes, and applications in cosmetic science. Mar Drugs 2019;17(6):369. DOI: 10.3390/md17060369.
  11. Husain S, Al-Samadani KH, Najeeb S, et al. Chitosan biomaterials for current and potential dental applications. Materials 2017;10(6):602. DOI: 10.3390/ma10060602.
  12. Tavangar M, Zohri Z, Sheikhnezhad H, et al. Comparison of microleakage of class V cavities restored with the embrace WetBond class V composite resin and conventional opallis composite resin. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(10):867–873. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2141.
  13. Moosavi H, Yazdi FM, Moghadam FV, et al. Comparison of resin composite restorations microleakage: an in-vitro study. Open J Stomatol 2013;3(02):209. DOI: 10.4236/ojst.2013.32036.
  14. Shivakumar AT, Kalgeri SH, Dhir S. Clinical considerations in restorative dentistry - a narrative review. J Int Clin Dent Res Organizat 2015;7(2):122. DOI: 10.4103/2231-0754.164377.
  15. Berbari R, Khairallah A, Kazan HF, et al. Measurement reliability of the remaining dentin thickness below deep carious lesions in primary molars. Int J Clin Pediat Dentis 2018;11(1):23. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1478.
  16. Loomba K, Bains R, Bains VK, et al. Proposal for clinical classification of multifactorial noncarious cervical lesions. Gen Dentis 2014;62(3):39–44.
  17. Srirekha A, Bashetty K. A comparative analysis of restorative materials used in abfraction lesions in tooth with and without occlusal restoration: three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Conservat Dentis 2013;16(2):157. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.108200.
  18. Pereira R, Giorgi MC, Lins RB, et al. Physical and photoelastic properties of bulk-fill and conventional composites. Clin, Cosme Investigat Dent 2018;10:287. DOI: 10.2147/CCIDE.S184660.
  19. Erpaçal B, Adıgüzel Ö, Cangül S, et al. A general overview of chitosan and its use in dentistry. Int Biolog Biomed J 2019;5(1):1–11.
  20. Kamali A, Javadpour S, Javid B, et al. Effects of chitosan and zirconia on setting time, mechanical strength, and bioactivity of calcium silicate-based cement. Int J Appl Cera Technol 2017;14(2):135–144. DOI: 10.1111/ijac.12636.
  21. Bajaj N, Grewal N, Monga P, et al. Association of physical properties and maintenance of sterility of primary teeth in human tooth bank. J Indian Soc Pedodon Prevent Dentis 2014;32(4):279. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.140939.
  22. Al Badr RM, Hassan HA. Effect of immersion in different media on the mechanical properties of dental composite resins. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2017;3(1):81–88.
  23. Pytko-Polonczyk J, Jakubik A, Przeklasa-Bierowiec A, et al. Artificial saliva and its use in biological experiments. J Physiol Pharmacol 2017;68(6):807–813.
  24. Gonçalves L, Amaral CM, Poskus LT, et al. Degradation of resin composites in a simulated deep cavity. Brazil Dent J 2014;25(6):532–537. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201300089.
  25. Özcan M, Cura C, Brendeke J. Effect of aging conditions on the repair bond strength of a microhybrid and a nanohybrid resin composite. J Adhes Dent 2010;12(6):451–459. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a17857.
  26. Rinastiti M, Özcan M, Siswomihardjo W, et al. Effects of surface conditioning on repair bond strengths of nonaged and aged microhybrid, nanohybrid, and nanofilled composite resins. Clin Oral Investig 2011;15(5):625–633. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-010-0426-6.
  27. Reis A, Carrilho M, Breschi L, et al. Overview of clinical alternatives to minimize the degradation of the resin-dentin bonds. Oper Dent 2013;38(4):1–25. DOI: 10.2341/12-258-LIT.
  28. Ghavami-Lahiji M, Firouzmanesh M, Bagheri H, et al. The effect of thermocycling on the degree of conversion and mechanical properties of a micro-hybrid dental resin composite. Restor Dent Endod 2018;43(2):26. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2018.43.e26.
  29. Parolia A, Adhauliya N, de Moraes Porto IC, et al. A comparative evaluation of microleakage around class V cavities restored with different tooth colored restorative materials. Oral Health Dent Manag 2014;13(1):120–126.
  30. Memarpour M, Derafshi R, Razavi M. Comparison of microleakage from stainless steel crowns margins used with different restorative materials: an in vitro study. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2016;13(1):7–12. DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.174689.
  31. Bavaria SR, Shah NC, Ruchirani P, et al. A comparative evaluation of micro leakage of two different bulk fill composites with Ever X posterior composite for class II restorations by dye extraction method-an in vitro study. J Dent Med Sci 2017;16:72.
  32. Kumar JS, Jayalakshmi S. Bond failure and its prevention in composite restoration-a review. J Pharmaceut Sci Res 2016;8(7):627.
  33. Drummond JL. Degradation, fatigue, and failure of resin dental composite materials. J Dent Res 2008;87(8):710–719. DOI: 10.1177/154405910808700802.
  34. Satheesh B, Tshai KY, Warrior NA. Effect of chitosan loading on the morphological, thermal, and mechanical properties of diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A/hexamethylenediamine epoxy system. J Compos 2014;2014:250290. DOI: 10.1155/2014/250290.
  35. Elsaka SE. Antibacterial activity and adhesive properties of a chitosan-containing dental adhesive. Quintess Int 2012;43(7):603–613.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.