International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  17 (2024)
Volume  16 (2023)
Volume  15 (2022)
Volume  14 (2021)
Volume  13 (2020)
Volume  12 (2019)
Volume  11 (2018)
Volume  10 (2017)
Volume  9 (2016)
Volume  8 (2015)
Volume  7 (2014)
Volume  6 (2013)
Volume  5 (2012)
Volume  4 (2011)
Volume  3 (2010)
Volume  2 (2009)
Volume  1 (2008)
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 10 ( October, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations Using Three Bulk-fill Composites with or without Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement Liner: A Stereomicroscopic Study

Vijay Amarnath C Mundaragi, Nandini T Niranjan, Kusuma S Chandrashekhar, Dhanu G Rao, Thimmanagowda N Patil, Suvarna C Chavan

Keywords : Bulk-fill composites, Class II composite restorations, Flowable composites, Microleakage, Resin-modified glass ionomer cement

Citation Information : Mundaragi VA, Niranjan NT, Chandrashekhar KS, Rao DG, Patil TN, Chavan SC. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations Using Three Bulk-fill Composites with or without Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement Liner: A Stereomicroscopic Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17 (10):1146-1152.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2957

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 27-11-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: To compare the microleakage of three bulk-fill composite resins with or without resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) liner. Materials and methods: A total of 30 maxillary human 1st premolar teeth were selected. Two box preparations were made on the mesial and distal sides. Teeth were randomly divided into three groups of 10 teeth each. RMGIC liner with 1 mm thick were applied to the mesial box. The specimens were divided into three groups according to the type of bulk-fill composites used and restoration of the cavities were done according to manufacturer instructions and light cured. Finishing and polishing were done and stored for 1 week in distilled water at 37°C. Thermocycling was then performed in a thermocycling unit. The specimens were then immersed in 0.5% methylene blue for 8 hours at 37°C. All the specimens were sectioned longitudinally in a mesiodistal direction and analyzed under 20× magnification in a stereomicroscope. The degree of dye penetration was scored. Results: Subgroup M showed comparatively less microleakage compared to subgroup D in all the groups which was statistically significant. When microleakage between the study group on mesial and distal sides was compared, group smart dentin replacement (SDR)-M showed less microleakage compared to group F-M and this difference was statistically significant. Conclusion: RMGIC is the recommended liner beneath the bulk-fill composites in class II cavities and SureFil SDR bulk-fill flowable can be the recommended composite resin for class II restorations. Clinical significance: Bulk-fill composite is a time-saving material as it eliminates the incremental placement. RMGIC is always recommended beneath bulk-fill composites. SDR bulk-fill is the recommended composite restoration.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Arora R, Kapur R, Sibal N, et al. Evaluation of microleakage in class II cavities using packable composite restorations with and without use of liners. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012;5(3):178–184.
  2. Scotti N, Comba A, Gambino A, et al. Microleakage at enamel and dentin margins with a bulk fills flowable resin. Eur J Dent 2014;8(1):1–8.
  3. Bogra P, Gupta S, Kumar S. Comparative evaluation of microleakage in class II cavities restored with Ceram X and Filtek P-90: an in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 2012;3(1):9–14.
  4. Leprince JG, Palin WM, Vanacker J, et al. Physico-mechanical characteristics of commercially available bulk-fill composites. J Dent 2014;42(8):993–1000.
  5. Miletic V, Pongprueksa P, De Munck J, et al. Curing characteristics of flowable and sculptable bulk-fill composites. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21(4):1201–1212.
  6. Van Ende A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, et al. Bulk-filling of high C-factor posterior cavities: effect on adhesion to cavity-bottom dentin. Dent Mater 2013;29(3):269–277.
  7. Baroudi K, Rodrigues JC. Flowable resin composites: a systematic review and clinical considerations. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(6):ZE18–ZE24.
  8. Majety KK, Pujar M. In vitro evaluation of microleakage of class II packable composite resin restorations using flowable composite and resin modified glass ionomers as intermediate layers. J Conserv Dent 2011;14(4):414–417.
  9. Finan L, Palin WM, Moskwa N, et al. The influence of irradiation potential on the degree of conversion and mechanical properties of two bulk-fill flowable RBC base materials. Dent Mater 2013;29(8):906–912.
  10. Garcia D, Yaman P, Dennison J, et al. Polymerization shrinkage and depth of cure of bulk fill flowable composite resins. Oper Dent 2014;39(4):441–448.
  11. Orłowski M, Tarczydło B, Chałas R. Evaluation of marginal integrity of four bulk-fill dental composite materials: in vitro study. ScientificWorldJournal 2015;2015:701262.
  12. http://www.ivoclarvivadent.us/zooluwebsite/media/document/22053/Tetric+EvoCeram+Bulk+Fill
  13. Moorthy A, Hogg CH, Dowling AH, et al. Cuspal deflection and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with bulk-fill flowable resin-based composite base materials. J Dent 2012;40(6):500–505.
  14. Karaman E, Ozgunaltay G. Polymerization shrinkage of different types of composite resins and microleakage with and without liner in class II cavities. Oper Dent 2014;39(3):325–331.
  15. Mount GJ. Buonocore memorial lecture. Glass ionomer cements: past, present, future. Oper Dent 1994;19:82–90.
  16. Narayana V, Ashwathanarayana S, Nadig G, et al. Assessment of microleakage in class II cavities having gingival wall in cementum using three different posterior composites. J Int Oral Health 2014;6(4):35–41.
  17. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Coutinho E, et al. Micro-tensile bond strength of adhesives bonded to class-I cavity-bottom dentin after thermo-cycling. Dent Mater 2005;21(11):999–1007.
  18. Demarco FF, Ramos OL, Mota CS, et al. Influence of different restorative techniques on microleakage in class II cavities with gingival wall in cementum. Oper Dent 2001;26(3):253–259.
  19. Yoshikawa T, Burrow MF, Tagami J. A light curing method for improving marginal sealing and cavity wall adaptation of resin composite restorations. Dent Mater 2001;17:359–366.
  20. Craig RG. Chemistry, composition, and properties of composite resins. Dent Clin North Am 1981;25(2):219–239.
  21. Swapna MU, Koshy S, Kumar A, et al. Comparing marginal microleakage of three bulk fill composites in class II cavities using confocal microscope: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2015;18(5):409–413.
  22. Leevailoj C, Cochran MA, Matis BA, et al. Microleakage of posterior packable resin composites with and without flowable liners. Oper Dent 2001;26(3):302–307.
  23. http://www.surefilsdrflow.com/sites/default/files/SureFilSDRflow_brochure.pdf
  24. Carvalho AA, Moreira FCL, Cunha LM, et al. Marginal microleakage of class II composite resin restorations due to restorative techniques. Rev Odnto Cienc 2010;25:165–169.
  25. Gopikrishna V, Abarajithan M, Krithikadatta J, et al. Shear bond strength evaluation of resin composite bonded to GIC using three different adhesives. Oper Dent 2009;34(4):467–471.
  26. Wahab FK, Shaini FJ, Morgano SM. The effect of thermocycling on microleakage of several commercially available composite class V restorations in vitro. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90(2):168–174.
  27. Abd El Halim S, Zaki D. Comparative evaluation of microleakage among three different glass ionomer types. Oper Dent 2011;36:36–42.
  28. Gueders AM, Charpentier JF, Albert AI, et al. Microleakage after thermocycling of 4 etch and rinse and 3 self-etch adhesives with and without a flowable composite lining. Oper Dent 2006;31(4):450–455.
  29. Khoroushi M, Karvandi TM, Kamali B, et al. Marginal microleakage of resin-modified glass-ionomer and composite resin restorations: effect of using etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives. Indian J Dent Res 2012;23(3):378–383.
  30. http://www.surefilsdrflow.com/sites/default/files/In_Practice_TP_Caulk_5th.pdf
  31. El-Damanhoury H, Platt J. Polymerization shrinkage stress kinetics and related properties of bulk-fill resin composites. Oper Dent 2014;39(4):374–382.
  32. Guo Y, Landis FA, Wang Z, et al. Polymerization stress evolution of a bulk-fill flowable composite under different compliances. Dent Mater 2016;32(4):578–586.
  33. Benetti AR, Havndrup-Pedersen C, Honoré D, et al. Bulk-fill resin composites: polymerization contraction, depth of cure, and gap formation. Oper Dent 2015;40(2):190–200.
  34. Ilie N, Bucuta S, Draenert M. Bulk-fill resin-based composites: an in vitro assessment of their mechanical performance. Oper Dent 2013;38(6):618–625.
  35. Zorzin J, Maier E, Harre S, et al. Bulk-fill resin composites: polymerization properties and extended light curing. Dent Mater 2015;31(3):293–301.
  36. Son SA, Park JK, Seo DG, et al. How light attenuation and filler content affect the microhardness and polymerization shrinkage and translucency of bulk-fill composites? Clin Oral Investig 2017;21:559–565.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.