International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2015 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of Microleakage and Marginal Ridge Fracture Resistance of Primary Molars Restored with Three Restorative Materials: A Comparative in vitro Study

Tapan Satish Yeolekar, Nagalakshmi Ramesh Chowdhary, KS Mukunda, NK Kiran

Keywords : Compomer, Dye penetration, Fracture resistance, Microleakage, Packable composite resin, Silorane composite resin

Citation Information : Yeolekar TS, Chowdhary NR, Mukunda K, Kiran N. Evaluation of Microleakage and Marginal Ridge Fracture Resistance of Primary Molars Restored with Three Restorative Materials: A Comparative in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015; 8 (2):108-113.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1294

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-07-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; The Author(s).


Composite restorations are popular because of their superior esthetics and acceptable clinical performance. But shrinkage is still a drawback. Polymerization shrinkage results in volumetric contraction, leading to deformation of the cusps, microleakage, decrease of marginal adaptation, enamel micro-cracks and postoperative sensitivity. A new class of ring opening resin composite based on silorane chemistry has been introduced with claims of less than 1% shrinkage during polymerization. The present study was conducted to evaluate and compare the ability of low shrink silorane based material, a packable composite and a compomer to resist microleakage in class II restorations on primary molars and evaluate marginal ridge fracture resistance of these materials. Sixty human primary molars were selected. Class II cavities were prepared and the teeth were divided into three groups of twenty each. Groups were as follows group I: low shrink composite resin (Filtek P90). Group II: packable composite (Filtek P60) and Group III: compomer (Compoglass F). Half of the teeth were used for microleakage and the rest for marginal ridge fracture resistance. For microleakage testing, dye penetration method was used with 1% methylene blue dye. Followed by evaluation and grading under stereomicroscope at 10× magnification. Fracture resistance was tested with universal testing machine. It was concluded that low shrink silorane based composite resin showed the least amount of microleakage, whereas compomer showed the highest microleakage. Packable composite resisted fracture of marginal ridge better than other composite resins. Marginal ridge fracture resistance of packable composite was comparable to the intact side. How to cite this article: Yeolekar TS, Chowdhary NR, Mukunda KS, Kiran NK. Evaluation of Microleakage and Marginal Ridge Fracture Resistance of Primary Molars Restored with Three Restorative Materials: A Comparative in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015;8(2):108-113.

PDF Share
  1. AL-Harbi SA, Farsi N. Microleakage of Ormocer-based restorative material in primary teeth: an in vivo study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2007;32(1):13-18.
  2. Annunziata M, Patrizia D. The marginal seal of various restorative materials in primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1997;22(1):51-54.
  3. Attar N, Turgut MD, Gungor HC. The effect of flowable resin composites as gingival increments on the microleakage of posterior resin composites. Oper Dent 2004;29(2):162-167.
  4. Bogra P, Gupta S, Kumar S. Comparative evaluation of microleakage in class II cavities restored with Ceram X and Filtek P90: an in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 2012;3(1):9-14.
  5. Mount G.J, Ngo H. Minimal intervention: a new concept for operative dentistry. Quintessence Int 2000;31:527-533.
  6. Tantbirojn D, Versluis A, Pintado MR, DeLong R, Douglas WH. Tooth deformation patterns in molars after composite restoration. Dent Mater 2004;20:535-542.
  7. Duarte S Jr, Saad JR. Marginal adaptation of class 2 adhesive restorations. Quintessence Int 2008;39:413-419.
  8. Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Pintado MR, DeLong R, Douglas WH. Residual shrinkage stress distributions in molars after composite restoration. Dent Mater 2004;20:554-564.
  9. Bullard R, Leinfelder, Russel. Effect of coefficient of thermal expansion on microlekage. JADA 1988;116:871-874.
  10. Chuang SF, Jin YT, Lin TS, Chang CH, Garcia-Godoy F. Effects of lining material on microleakage and internal voids of class II resin-based composite restorations. Am J Dent 2003;16(2):84-90.
  11. Donly KJ, Wild TW, Jensen ME. Posterior composite class II restorations: in vitro comparison of preparation designs and restoration techniques. Dent Mater 1990;6(2):88-93.
  12. Palin W, Fleming JP, Nathwani H, Trevor FJ, Randall RC. In vitro cuspal deflection and microleakage of maxillary premolars restored with novel low shrink dental composites. Dent Mater 2005;21:324-335.
  13. Weinmann W, Thalacker C, Guggenberger R. Silorane in dental composites. Dent Mater 2006;21(6):68-74.
  14. Bagis YH, Baltacioglu IH, Kahyaogollari S. Comparing microleakage and the layering methods of silorane based resin composite in wide class II MOD cavity. Oper Dent 2009; 34(5):578-585.
  15. Lein W, Vandewalle KS. Physical properties of a new siloranebased restorative system. Dent Materials 2010;26:337-344.
  16. Al-Boni R, Raja OA. Microleakage evaluation of silorane based composite versus methacrylate based composite. J Conserv Dent 2010;13(3):152-155.
  17. Cristina L, Boaro C, Goncalves F, Guimaraes TC, Ferracane JL, Versluis A, Braga RR. Polymerization stress, shrinkage and elastic modulus of current low shrinkage restorative composites. Dent Mater 2010;26(7):1144-1150.
  18. Prabhu NT, Munshi AK, Shetty T. Marginal rigde fracture resistance, microleakge and pulpal response to glass ionomer/glass cermet partial tunnel restorations. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1997;21(3):241-246.
  19. Guiraldo RD, Consani S, Consani RL, Berger SB, Mendes WB, Sinhoreti MA, Correr-Sobrinho L. Comparison of silorane and methacrylate-based composite resins on the curing light transmission. Braz Dent J 2010;21(6):538-542.
  20. Kikuti WY, Chaves FO, Di Hipólito V, Rodrigues FP, D'Alpino PH. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with different resin based restorative systems. Braz Oral Res 2012; 26(3):275-281.
  21. Toprali M, Ozdemir I, Tekmen C. An in vitro investigation of mechanical behaviour in composite resin materials. Sept. 2005 University of western cape.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.