Keywords :
Class V restorations, Compule composites, Microleakage, Thermocycling, Ultrasonic scaling
Citation Information :
Mohan KS, Rathinavelu PK, Ananya B, Vetrivel A, Veetil VK, Padmanaban A. Comparison of Microleakage after Ultrasonic Scaling at Gingival Margin in Class V Restorations with Two Different Compule Composites. World J Dent 2024; 15 (7):612-616.
Aim: The present in vitro study evaluates and compares the microleakage of two different compule composites in class V restorations after ultrasonic scaling.
Material and methods: In an in vitro study conducted at Saveetha Dental College in Chennai, 20 noncaries maxillary anterior and premolars were selected for assessing microleakage in restorations after ultrasonic scaling. The teeth were divided into two groups—group GTC (Tetric® N-Line) and group GC (COLTENE Synergy D6), with 10 extracted teeth in each group. The cavity preparation and restoration were done, followed by ultrasonic scaling. Then, the samples were sent for thermocycling, and microleakage analysis was conducted with dye immersion. The specimens were evaluated for microleakage using a stereomicroscope at 40× magnification. The data were analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 19, and the graph was plotted.
Results: The total percentage of samples showing microleakage scores of 1, 2, 3, and 4 was 25, 25, 30, and 25%, respectively. The GTC group exhibited the highest percentage of score 1 compared to the GC group. The distribution of microleakage scores between the two groups, GTC and GC, revealed that the difference was not statistically significant, as the p-value was 0.579.
Conclusion: In conclusion, it can be inferred that the microleakage scores did not significantly differ between the two composite types analyzed in this study. This suggests that both materials perform similarly in terms of microleakage, indicating that they can be considered viable options for restorative procedures.
Clinical significance: Compule composite restorative materials have increased pores within unpolymerized resins present in the compule. The lack of significant difference in microleakage scores also suggests that the presence of increased pores within the compule composites does not adversely affect their polymerization or integrity in a way that significantly impacts microleakage. This provides valuable information about the performance of these compules in clinical settings and can guide clinicians in selecting suitable restorative materials.
Punathil S, Almalki SA, AlJameel AH, et al. Assessment of microleakage using dye penetration method in primary teeth restored with tooth-colored materials: an in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019;20(7):778–782. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2596
Featherstone JD, Doméjean S. Minimal intervention dentistry: part 1. From ‘compulsive’ restorative dentistry to rational therapeutic strategies. Br Dent J 2012;213(9):441–445. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.1007
Alkhudhairy FI, Ahmad ZH. Comparison of shear bond strength and microleakage of various bulk-fill Bioactive dentin substitutes: an in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(12):997–1002. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1970
Pradeep K, Kuttappa MA, Kudva A, et al. In vitro comparison of compressive strength of bulk-fill composites and nanohybrid composite. World J Dent 2016;7(3):119–122. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1378
Masih S, Thomas AM, Koshy G, et al. Comparative evaluation of the microleakage of two modified glass ionomer cements on primary molars. An in vivo study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2011;29(2):135–139. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.84686
Jain K, Katge F, Poojari M, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of bioactive, Ormocer, and conventional GIC restorative materials in primary molars: an in vitro study microleakage of three restorative materials. Int J Dent 2022;2022:7932930. DOI: 10.1155/2022/7932930
Chalmers JM. Minimal intervention dentistry: part 1. Strategies for addressing the new caries challenge in older patients. J Can Dent Assoc 2006;72(5):427–433.
Sudhapalli SK, Sudhapalli S, Razdan RA, et al. A comparative evaluation of microleakage among newer composite materials: an in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 2018;9(4):587–591. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_621_18
Longman CM, Pearson GJ. Variations in tooth surface temperature in the oral cavity during fluid intake. Biomaterials 1987;8(5):411–414. DOI: 10.1016/0142-9612(87)90016-0
Nilsen BW, Mouhat M, Jokstad A. Quantification of porosity in composite resins delivered by injectable syringes using X-ray microtomography. Biomater Investig Dent 2020;7(1):86–95. DOI: 10.1080/26415275.2020.1784013
Bhadra D, Shah NC, Rao AS, et al. A 1-year comparative evaluation of clinical performance of nanohybrid composite with Activa™ bioactive composite in class II carious lesion: a randomized control study. J Conserv Dent 2019;22(1):92–96. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_511_18
Arthilakshmi, Vishnurekha C, Annamalai S, et al. Effect of protective coating on microleakage of conventional glass ionomer cement and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in primary molars: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2018;29(6):744–748. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_490_17
Kaushik M, Yadav M. Marginal microleakage properties of Activa Bioactive restorative and Nanohybrid Composite resin using two different adhesives in non carious cervical lesions - an in vitro study. J West Afr Coll Surg 2017;7(2):1–14.
Singla T, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, et al. An evaluation of microleakage of various glass ionomer based restorative materials in deciduous and permanent teeth: an in vitro study. Saudi Dent J 2012;24(1):35–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2011.10.002
Omidi BR, Naeini FF, Dehghan H, et al. Microleakage of an Enhanced resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material in primary molars. J Dent (Tehran) 2018;15(4):205–213.
Al-Harbi SD, Farsi N. Microleakage of Ormocer-based restorative material in primary teeth: an in vivo study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2007;32(1):13–17. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.32.1.x30104r38772415h
Mahmoud SH, El-Embaby AE, AbdAllah AM, et al. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorative systems in posterior teeth. J Adhes Dent 2008;10(4):315–322.
Tiron B, Forna NC, Tărăboanţă I, et al. The evaluation of the cervical marginal sealing of direct vs. indirect composite resin restorations in MOD cavities. Dent J (Basel) 2024;12(4):92. DOI: 10.3390/dj12040092
Ernst CP, Cortain G, Spohn M, et al. Marginal integrity of different resin-based composites for posterior teeth: an in vitro dye-penetration study on eight resin-composite and compomer-/adhesive combinations with a particular look at the additional use of flow-composites. Dent Mater 2002;18(4):351–358. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(01)00061-6
Mundim FM, Garcia Lda F, Cruvinel DR, et al. Color stability, opacity and degree of conversion of pre-heated composites. J Dent 2011;39(Suppl 1):e25–e29. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.12.001