Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2014; 08(04): 450-455
DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.143615
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Comparative evaluation of microleakage of nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer: An in vitro study

Nesrin Eronat
1   Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dental, Ege University, Izmir, Turkiye
,
Emir Yilmaz
1   Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dental, Ege University, Izmir, Turkiye
,
Nazan Kara
1   Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dental, Ege University, Izmir, Turkiye
,
Asli Topaloglu Ak
1   Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dental, Ege University, Izmir, Turkiye
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 September 2019 (online)

Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: This in vitro study evaluated the microleakage of a nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer and a high viscosity glass-ionomer restorations in class V cavities. Materials and Methods: Thirty-two class V cavities prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 16 sound, third molar teeth were randomly assigned into two groups and restored by one of the glass ionomer material; Group A: A high viscosity (Ketac Molar, 3M ESPE) Group B: A nano-filled resin-modified (Ketac N100, 3M ESPE) glass ionomer. One clinician prepared all the cavities. The materials were used according to the manufacturers’ recommendations. The restored teeth were then stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h, thermocycled at 5-55°C for 1000 cycles. The specimens were immersed in aqueous solution of Indian ink dye for 48 h at room temperature. They were embedded in resin polyester and sectioned longitudinally in a buccolingual direction. Microleakage was assessed according to the depth of dye penetration along the restoration. The extent of dye penetration at the occlusal and gingival margins was assessed using a stereo microscope. Randomly selected samples from each group were prepared for scanning electron microscope evaluation. The data were statistically analyzed with Friedman and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests. Results: There were statistically significant differences between the microleakage scores of the two groups for both occlusal and gingival scores (P = 0.001). Occlusal and gingival scores for high viscosity glass ionomer (P = 0.024) and nanoionomer (P = 0.021) using Wilcoxon signed ranks tests showed statistically significant differences. High viscosity glass ionomer showed significantly less microleakage compared to the nano-filled resin-modified glass-ionomer (RMGIs) at occlusal margin (P = 0.001). No significant differences were found between the groups at gingival margin (P = 0.0317). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, nano-filled RMGIs restorations did not perform better than high viscosity glass ionomer in class V cavities in terms of microleakage assessment.

Key words:

High viscosity glass ionomer - microleakage - nanoionomer
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Leinfelder KF. Glass ionomers: Current clinical developments. J Am Dent Assoc 1993; 124: 62-4
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Croll TP. Glass ionomers and esthetic dentistry: What the new properties mean to dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 1992; 123: 51-4
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 McLean JW. The clinical use of glass-ionomer cements – future and current developments. Clin Mater 1991; 7: 283-8
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Croll TP. Nanofilled resin-modified glass ionomer restorative cement. Contemp Esthet 2007; 11: 14-7
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Markovic DL, Petrovic BB, Peric TO. Fluoride content and recharge ability of five glassionomer dental materials. BMC Oral Health 2008; 8: 21
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Coutinho E, Cardoso MV, De Munck J, Neves AA, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A. et al. Bonding effectiveness and interfacial characterization of a nano-filled resin-modified glass-ionomer. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 1347-57
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Croll TP, Nicholson JW. Glass ionomer cements in pediatric dentistry: Review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 2002; 24: 423-9
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Moszner N, Salz U. New developments of polymeric dental composites. Program Polym Sci 2001; 26: 535-76
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 El-Ashiry EA, Bakry NS, Farsi N, Farsi D. Microleakage evaluation of two different nano-restorative materials in primary molars: In vitro study. Life Sci J 2012; 9: 2292-300
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Raskin A, D'Hoore W, Gonthier S, Degrange M, Déjou J. Reliability of in vitro microleakage tests: A literature review. J Adhes Dent 2001; 3: 295-308
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Gupta KV, Verma P, Trivedi A. Evaluation of microleakage of various restorative materials: An in vitro study. J Life Sci 2011; 3: 29-33
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 Wadenya R, Mante FK. An in vitro comparison of marginal microleakage of alternative restorative treatment and conventional glass ionomer restorations in extracted permanent molars. Pediatr Dent 2007; 29: 303-7
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P. et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: Current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003; 28: 215-35
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Heintze S, Forjanic M, Cavalleri A. Microleakage of Class II restorations with different tracers: Comparison with SEM quantitative analysis. J Adhes Dent 2008; 10: 259-67
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Youssef MN, Youssef FA, Souza-Zaroni WC, Turbino ML, Vieira MM. Effect of enamel preparation method on in vitro marginal microleakage of a flowable composite used as pit and fissure sealant. Int J Paediatr Dent 2006; 16: 342-7
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 16 Youngson CC, Jones JC, Manogue M, Smith IS. In vitro dentinal penetration by tracers used in microleakage studies. Int Endod J 1998; 31: 90-9
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Toledano M, Osorio E, Osorio R, García-Godoy F. Microleakage of Class V resin-modified glass ionomer and compomer restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81: 610-5
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 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: 885-91
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Brackett WW, Gunnin TD, Gilpatrick RO, Browning WD. Microleakage of Class V compomer and light-cured glass ionomer restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 79: 261-3
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Mitra SB, Lee CY, Bui HT, Tantbirojn D, Rusin RP. Long-term adhesion and mechanism of bonding of a paste-liquid resin-modified glass-ionomer. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 459-66
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Abd El HalimS, Zaki D. Comparative evaluation of microleakage among three different glass ionomer types. Oper Dent 2011; 36: 36-42
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Upadhyay S, Rao A. Nanoionomer: Evaluation of microleakage. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2011; 29: 20-4
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Deepali S, Hedge MN. Coronal microleakage of four restorative materials used in endodontically treated teeth as a coronal barrier-an in vitro study. Endodotology. 27-35
  • 24 Antonson SA, Yazici AR, Okte Z, Villalta P, Antonson DE, Hardigan PC. Effect of resealing on microleakage of resin composite restorations in relationship to margin design and composite type. Eur J Dent 2012; 6: 389-95
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Erdilek D, Dörter C, Koray F, Kunzelmann KH, Efes BG, Gomec Y. Effect of Thermo-mechanical Load Cycling on Microleakage in Class II Ormocer Restorations. Eur J Dent 2009; 3: 200-5
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Idriss S, Abduljabbar T, Habib C, Omar R. Factors associated with microleakage in Class II resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2007; 32: 60-6
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar