Keywords :
Cention N, Dye penetration, Equia Forte, Filtek Z350, GC Fuji II LC, Microleakage
Citation Information :
Ragavinothini S, Chittrarasu M, Arthanarieswaran AS, Nijalingappa V, Soundappan J S, J S S. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Direct Tooth-colored Restorative Materials on Class V Cavities: An In Vitro Study. World J Dent 2024; 15 (7):560-565.
Aims and background: The aim of the study is to evaluate and compare the marginal sealing efficacy of four direct tooth-colored restorative materials on class V cavities using the dye penetration method.
Materials and methods: Sixty human permanent premolars extracted for orthodontic purposes were used in the study. Class V cavities were prepared on the labial surface of the premolars, with occlusal margins in enamel and gingival margins in dentin or cementum. The teeth were divided into 4 groups of 15 samples each. Equia Forte Fil (GC), Cention N (Ivoclar Vivadent), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC—GC Fuji II LC), and Filtek Z350 (3M ESPE) were placed in the class V cavities of the samples in groups I, II, III, and IV, respectively. The samples were then subjected to thermocycling, placed in basic fuchsin dye for 24 hours, and sectioned longitudinally. They were observed under a stereomicroscope. The data were analyzed using the Chi-squared test, Kruskal–Wallis test, and Mann–Whitney U test.
Results: The Chi-squared test shows a statistically significant difference in the gingival margin (p = 0.038) among the four study groups. The Kruskal–Wallis test shows a statistically significant difference between the four groups in both the occlusal margin (p = 0.043) and the gingival margin (p = 0.036). The Mann–Whitney U test at the occlusal margin shows a significant difference between groups II and IV (p = 0.040), and at the gingival margin shows a significant difference between groups I and IV (p = 0.024).
Conclusion: The nanocomposite exhibited the least microleakage in both the occlusal and gingival margins compared to the other groups, with microleakage being lesser in the occlusal margin than in the gingival margin.
Clinical significance: Microleakage can lead to secondary caries, tooth hypersensitivity, and pulpal infection. Therefore, the selection of a restorative material with the least or no microleakage is important.
Singh S, Goel D, Awasthi N, et al. Comparative evaluation of marginal integrity of three esthetic restorative materials – an in-vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 2021;12:241–246. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_318_20
Salman KM, Naik SB, Kumar NK, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage in Class V cavities restored with giomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, zirconomer and nano-ionomer: an in vitro study. J Int Clin Dent Res Organ 2019;11:20–25. DOI: 10.4103/jicdro.jicdro_2_19
Mazumdar P, Das A, Das UK. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three different direct restorative materials (silver amalgam, glass ionomer cement, cention N), in class II restorations using stereomicroscope: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2019;30:277–281. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_481_17
Bollu IP, Hari A, Thumu J, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage between nano-ionomer, giomer and resin modified glass ionomer cement in class V cavities- CLSM study. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10:ZC66–ZC70. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/18730.7798
Aya S, Ali M, Elmalt MA, et al. A comparative evaluation of EQUIA Forte microleakage versus resin-modified glass ionomer. ADJ-for Girls 2019;6:249–254.
Moshaverinia M, Navas A, Jahedmanesh N, et al. Comparative evaluation of the physical properties of a reinforced glass ionomer dental restorative material. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122(2):154–159. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.03.012
Mann JS, Sharma S, Maurya S, et al. Cention N: a review. Int J Curr Res 2018;10:69111–69112.
Malik Z, Butt D, Butt ZQ, et al. Evolution of anticariogenic resin-modified glass ionomer cements. ChemBioEng Reviews 2021;8:1–12. DOI: 10.1002/cben.202100005
Okpala CC. Nanocomposites – an overview. Int J Eng Res Dev 2013;8:17–23.
Sharath Chandra SM, Raghavendra Rao BK, Rao KN. Effect of unfilled resin sealant surface coating on the marginal leakage of two cervical restorations: light curing nanoglass ionomer and nanoceramic composite—an in vitro stereomicroscopic dye penetration study. Al Ameen J Med Sci 2011;4:229–237.
Alonso RC, Sinhoreti MA, Correr Sobrinho L, et al. Effect of resin liners on the microleakage of class v dental composite restorations. J Appl Oral Sci 2004;12:56–61. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572004000100011
Aakriti, Ruhil J, Bhushan J, et al. To evaluate and compare microleakage in teeth restored with conventional glass ionomer cement and two newer restorative materials EQUIA Forte and Cention N using stereomicroscope. J Adv Med Dent Sci Res 2020;8:163–167. DOI: 10.21276/jamdsr
Hegde MN, Vyapaka P, Shetty S. A comparative evaluation of microleakage of three different newer direct composite resins using a self etching primer in class V cavities: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2009;12:160–163. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.58340
Recen D, Yazkan B. A comparative microleakage analysis of ion-releasing self-adherable materials. J Stomatol 2021;74:203–210. DOI: 10.5114/jos.2021.111617
Eliasson ST, Dahl JE. Effect of thermal cycling on temperature changes and bond strength in different test specimens. Biomater Investig Dent 2020;7:16–24. DOI: 10.1080/26415275.2019.1709470
Pazinatto FB, Campos BB, Costa LC, et al. Effect of the number of thermocycles on microleakage of resin composite restorations. Pesquisa Odontológica Brasileira 2003;17:337–341. DOI: 10.1590/s1517-74912003000400008
Gupta K, Verma P, Trivedi A. Evaluation of microleakage of various restorative materials: an in vitro study. J Life Sci 2011;3:29–33. DOI: 10.1080/09751270.2011.11885166
Sharma RD, Sharma J, Rani A. Comparative evaluation of marginal adaptation between nanocomposites and microhybrid composites exposed to two light cure units. Indian J Dent Res 2011;22:495. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.87082
Amina, Rajput G, Ahmed S, et al. Comparison of microleakage in nanocomposite and amalgam as a crown foundation material luted with different luting cements under CAD-CAM milled metal crowns: an in vitro microscopic study. Polymers 2022;14:2609. DOI: 10.3390/polym14132609
Patanjali S, Arora A, Arya A, et al. An in vitro study of effect of beveling of enamel on microleakage and shear bond strength of adhesive systems in primary and permanent teeth. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2019;12:205–210. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1623
Pawar M, Saleem Agwan MA, Ghani B, et al. Evaluation of class II restoration microleakage with various restorative materials: a comparative in vitro study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2021;13:1210–1214. DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_359_21
Techa-Ungkul C, Sakoolnamarka R. The effect of dentin age on the microshear bond strength and microleakage of glass-ionomer cements. Gerodontology 2020;38:259–266. DOI: 10.1111/ger.12520
Toledano M, Osorio E, Osorio R, et al. Microleakage of class V resin-modified glass ionomer and compomer restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:610–615. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70217-9
Unnikrishnan S, Krishnamurthy NH, Nagarathna C. Marginal microleakage of glass ionomer cement with two different cavity conditioners on primary anterior teeth – an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2019;30:267–272. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_695_17
Mishra A, Singh G, Singh SK, et al. Comparative evaluation of mechanical properties of Cention N with conventionally used restorative materials. Int J Oral Health Dent 2018;8:120–124. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1219