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; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


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.

PDF Share
  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.