Microleakage of Silorane-based Resin Composite in Comparison with Methacrylate-based Composite in Class II Open Sandwich Restorations: An in vitro Study
Nidarsh D Hegde
Citation Information :
Hegde ND. Microleakage of Silorane-based Resin Composite in Comparison with Methacrylate-based Composite in Class II Open Sandwich Restorations: An in vitro Study. World J Dent 2012; 3 (2):145-149.
This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of different monomer systems on microleakage in class II composite open sandwich restorations with and without a separating agent placed between the nanofilled resin modified glass ionomer and the resin.
Materials and methods
Class II cavity preparations were prepared in maxillary premolars (n = 240) and the cervical limit of the proximal box was below the cementoenamel junction. Group 1 was restored with silorane-based composite and group II was restored with methacrylate-based composite. All specimens were subjected to thermocycling and examined for microleakage after in 50% silver nitrate solution. The recorded results of dye penetration were statistically analyzed using Chisquare test.
Results
Methacrylate-based composite (Filtek Z 350, 3M, St Paul, MN, USA) exhibited the highest dye penetration and silorane-based composite (Filtek P90 Low Shrink Posterior Restorative, 3M, St Paul, MN, USA) showed the lowest dye penetration among the restorative materials. However, specimens with separating agent showed almost no leakage between the RMGIC and tooth interface.
Conclusion
Forces of polymerization shrinkage are stronger than the bond between glass ionomer cement and tooth interface and the use of silorane technology in open sandwich restoration will decrease microleakage and improve clinical performance.
How to cite this article
Hegde MN, Hegde N, Hegde ND. Microleakage of Silorane-based Resin Composite in Comparison with Methacrylate-based Composite in Class II Open Sandwich Restorations: An in vitro Study. World J Dent 2012;3(2):145-149.
James R Microleakage at gingival dentin margins of class 5 composite restorations lined with light cured glass ionomer cement. JADA 1990;12:705-10.
Adhesion of composite resin to etched glass ionomer cement. Aust Dent Jour 1988;33(2):87-90.
Polymerization shrinkage of posterior composite resins and its possible influnce on postoperative sensitivity. Quint Int 1986;17(2):103-11.
John H Microleakage at the gingival wall with four class 5 anterior restorative material. JPD 1985; 54(3):70-72.
Marginal leakage of filled dentin adhesives used with wet and dry bonding techniques. Am J Dent 2000;13(2):93-97.
Effect of composite resin placement techniques on the microleakage of two self-etching dentin-bonding agents. Am J Dent 2001;14(3):132-36.
Shear bond strength of chemical and light cured glass ionomer cements bonded to resin composites. Aust Dent Jour 1998;43(2):81-86.
The use of glass ionomer cements in bonding composite resins to dentin. Brit Dent J 1985;158:410-14.
Nanoleakage, ultramorphological characteristics, and microtensile bond strengths of a new low shrinkage composite to dentin after artificial aging. Dental Materials 2009;25:589-600.
Davidson. Glass-Ionomer bases under posterior composites. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 1994;6:223-26.
Thermocycling and dwell times in microleakage evaluation for bonded restorations. Dent Mater 1995;11(1):47-51.
Microleakage at the cervical margin of composite class II cavities with different restorative techniques. Oper Dent 2001;26:60-69.
Sealing performance of Scotchbond Multipurpose-Z100 in Class II restorations. American Journal of Dentistry 1996;9(4):145-49.
Influence of tissue characteristics at margins on leakage of Class II indirect porcelain restorations. American Journal of Dentistry 1999;12:134-42.
Dietrich T, Losche GM, Roulet JF. Marginal adaptation of direct composite and sandwich restorations in Class II cavities with cervical margins in dentine. Journal of Dentistry 1999;27:119-28.
Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin-based composite for posterior restorations in permanent teeth: Result at 12 months. JADA 2003;134:1581-89.
Nine-year evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite/resin composite open sandwich technique in Class II cavities. J Dent. 2007;35(2): 124-29.
Polymerization shrinkage and polymerization shrinkage stress in polymer-based restoratives. Journal of Dentistry 1997;25:435-40.
Microleakage in Class II composite resin restorations: Total bonding and open sandwich technique. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2002;4(2):137-44.
Longevity of extensive Class II open-sandwich restorations with resin-modified glass-ionomer cement. J Dent Res 1999;78(7):1319-25.
A 6-year evaluation of a direct composite resin inlay/onlay system and glass ionomer cement-composite resin sandwich restorations. Acta Odontol Scand 1994;52(6):368-76.
Effect of a resin-modified glass ionomer liner on volumetric polymerization shrinkage of various composites. Dent Mater 1998;14(6):417-23.
Bonding effectiveness and interfacial characterization of a nano-filled resin-modified glass-ionomer. Dent Mater 2009;25(11):1347-57.
Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater 2005;21(1):68-74.
Microhardness of Class II composite resin restorations with different matrices and light positions. J Prosthet Dent 1991 Apr;65(4):487-90.
Comparing microleakage and layering methods of silorane based resin composite in wide Class II MOD cavities. Operative Dentistry 2009;34-5:578-85.
Microleakage evaluation of a new low-shrinkage composite restorative material. Operative Dentistry 2006;31-6:670-76.
In vitro cuspal deflection and microleakage of maxillary premolars restored with novel low shrink dental composites. Dental Materials 2005;21:324-35.
Marginal integrity of class V restorations: SEM versus dye penetration. Dent Mater 2008;24:319-27.
