Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2019; 13(04): 599-606
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-3401435
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation and Microleakage of Three Glass Ionomer-Based Class V Restorations: In Vitro Study

Maha M. Ebaya
1   Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt
,
Ashraf I. Ali
1   Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt
,
Salah H. Mahmoud
1   Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 December 2019 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the marginal adaptation and microleakage of class V cavities restored with conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), and bioactive ionic resin (BIR) restorative materials after 6 months of water storage.

Materials and Methods One hundred twenty standardized class V cavities (2 mm deep, 4 mm in width, and 3 mm in height) were prepared in sound extracted human molar teeth, where the coronal margins were in enamel while the cervical margins were in dentin. Three glass ionomer-based restorations were tested (n = 40): GIC (Equia Fil), RMGI (Fuji II LC), and BIR (ACTIVA Bioactive Restorative). Half of the teeth from each group (n = 20) were evaluated for their marginal adaptation with scanning electron microscopy and the other half submitted to dye penetration test to examine microleakage. Further division for each subgroup (n = 10) occurred to be tested immediately, while the remaining teeth were examined after keeping for 6 months and thermocycling.

Statistical analysis The outcomes were analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests.

Results No statistically significant differences were observed among the three studied restorative materials. However, the differences were statistically significant in microleakage test between enamel and dentin and after water aging.

Conclusion All tested restorative materials exhibited the same marginal adaptation and microleakage. Dentin substrate revealed greater microleakage than enamel, especially with BIR restorative material. Water aging had a negative effect on RMGI with respect to microleakage.

Keywords

glass ionomer - scanning electron microscopy - resin-modified glass ionomer - microleakage
 

  • References

  • 1 Mount GJ, Tyas MJ, Ferracane JL. et al. A revised classification for direct tooth-colored restorative materials. Quintessence Int 2009; 40 (08) 691-697
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Mousavinasab SM, Meyers I. Fluoride release by glass ionomer cements, compomer and giomer. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2009; 6 (02) 75-81
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Khoroushi M, Keshani F. A review of glass-ionomers: from conventional glass-ionomer to bioactive glass-ionomer. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2013; 10 (04) 411-420
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 McCabe JF, Yan Z, Al Naimi OT, Mahmoud G, Rolland SL. Smart materials in dentistry. Aust Dent J 2011; 56 (01) Suppl 1 3-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Alrahlah A. Diametral tensile strength, flexural strength, and surface microhardness of bioactive bulk fill restorative. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (01) 13-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Jyothi K, Annapurna S, Kumar AS, Venugopal P, Jayashankara C. Clinical evaluation of giomer- and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class V noncarious cervical lesions: an in vivo study. J Conserv Dent 2011; 14 (04) 409-413
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 De Caluwé T, Vercruysse CW, Ladik I. et al. Addition of bioactive glass to glass ionomer cements: effect on the physicochemical properties and biocompatibility. Dent Mater 2017; 33 (04) e186-e203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Aggarwal V, Logani A, Jain V, Shah N. Effect of cyclic loading on marginal adaptation and bond strength in direct vs. indirect class II MO composite restorations. Oper Dent 2008; 33 (05) 587-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Diwanji A, Dhar V, Arora R, Madhusudan A, Rathore AS. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three restorative glass ionomer cements: an in vitro study. J Nat Sci Biol Med 2014; 5 (02) 373-377
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Abd Al Hbdan A. Review of microleakage evaluation tools. J Int Oral Health 2017; 9 (04) 141-145
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Kimyai S, Pournaghi-Azar F, Daneshpooy M, Abed Kahnamoii M, Davoodi F. Effect of two prophylaxis methods on marginal gap of Cl Vresin-modified glass-ionomer restorations. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2016; 10 (01) 23-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Manhart J, Trumm C. Marginal adaptation of an etch-and-rinse adhesive with a new type of solvent in class II cavities after artificial aging. Clin Oral Investig 2010; 14 (06) 699-705
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Soares CJ, Celiberto L, Dechichi P, Fonseca RB, Martins LR. Marginal integrity and microleakage of direct and indirect composite inlays: SEM and stereomicroscopic evaluation. Braz Oral Res 2005; 19 (04) 295-301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bansal D, Mahajan M. Comparative evaluation of different periods of enamel microabrasion on the microleakage of class V resin-modified glass ionomer and compomer restorations: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2017; 28 (06) 675-680
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Magni E, Zhang L, Hickel R, Bossù M, Polimeni A, Ferrari M. SEM and microleakage evaluation of the marginal integrity of two types of class V restorations with or without the use of a light-curable coating material and of polishing. J Dent 2008; 36 (11) 885-891
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gladys S, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Marginal adaptation and retention of a glass-ionomer, resin-modified glass-ionomers and a polyacid-modified resin composite in cervical Class-V lesions. Dent Mater 1998; 14 (04) 294-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Aggarwal V, Singla M, Miglani S. Effect of thermal and mechanical loading on marginal adaptation and microtensile bond strength of a self-etching adhesive with caries-affected dentin. J Conserv Dent 2011; 14 (01) 52-56
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Gjorgievska E, Nicholson JW, Iljovska S, Slipper IJ. Marginal adaptation and performance of bioactive dental restorative materials in deciduous and young permanent teeth. J Appl Oral Sci 2008; 16 (01) 1-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Sampaio PC, de Almeida Júnior AA, Francisconi LF. et al. Effect of conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer liner on dentin adhesive interface of Class I cavity walls after thermocycling. Oper Dent 2011; 36 (04) 403-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Mali P, Deshpande S, Singh A. Microleakage of restorative materials: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2006; 24 (01) 15-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Amaral I, Gameiro A, Lopes L, Ventura I. In vitro study of microleakage and microhardness of high viscosity glass ionomer cement and resin modified glass ionomer cement. J Dent Oral Hyg 2017; 1: 283-289
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Rekha CV, Varma B. Jayanthi. Comparative evaluation of tensile bond strength and microleakage of conventional glass ionomer cement, resin modified glass ionomer cement and compomer: an in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 2012; 3 (03) 282-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Owens BM, Phebus JG, Johnson WW. Evaluation of the marginal integrity of a bioactive restorative material. Gen Dent 2018; 66 (03) 32-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Pontes DG, Guedes-Neto MV, Cabral MF. Cohen-Carneiro F. Microleakage evaluation of class V restorations with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Oral Health Dent Manag 2014; 13 (03) 642-646
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Omidi BR, Naeini FF, Dehghan H, Tamiz P, Savadroodbari MM, Jabbarian R. Microleakage of an enhanced resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material in primary molars. J Dent (Tehran) 2018; 15 (04) 205-213
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Fabianelli A, Sgarra A, Goracci C, Cantoro A, Pollington S, Ferrari M. Microleakage in class II restorations: open vs closed centripetal build-up technique. Oper Dent 2010; 35 (03) 308-313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Pinto-Sinai G, Brewster J, Roberts H. Linear coefficient of thermal expansion evaluation of glass ionomer and ­resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. Oper Dent 2018; 43 (05) E266-E272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Sadeghi M, Lynch CD. The effect of flowable materials on the microleakage of Class II composite restorations that extend apical to the cemento-enamel junction. Oper Dent 2009; 34 (03) 306-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Majety KK, Pujar M. In vitro evaluation of microleakage of class II packable composite resin restorations using flowable composite and resin modified glass ionomers as intermediate layers. J Conserv Dent 2011; 14 (04) 414-417
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Masih S, Thomas AM, Koshy G, Joshi JL. 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 (02) 135-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar