Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Indian J Dent Res. 2019 May-Jun;30(3):403-407. doi: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_767_17.

Comparative evaluation of microleakage around Class V cavities restored with alkasite restorative material with and without bonding agent and flowable composite resin: An in vitro study.

Author information

1
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontia, Swargiya Dadasaheb Kalmegh Smruti Dental College, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.
2
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Govt Dental College and Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
3
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Swargiya Dadasaheb Kalmegh Smruti Dental College, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.

Abstract

Background:

Marginal adaptability of restorative material is one of the prime factors for success of a restoration.

Aim:

To evaluate microleakage at enamel restoration and dentin restoration interface of Class V cavities restored with new alkasite restorative material Cention-N, with and without using bonding agent and flowable composite resin.

Materials and Methods:

Thirty Class V tooth preparations were divided into three groups (n = 10): Group-I restored with Cention-N (Ivoclar Vivadent) without adhesive, Group-II was restored with Cention-N after application of eighth-generation bonding agent (3M ESPE, Single Bond Universal Adhesive), and Group-III was restored with flowable composite resin (Tetric-N-Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent). All samples were subjected to 200 thermocycles between temperature baths at 5°C and 55°C. All samples were cut longitudinally through the center of the restorations with the help of isomet diamond saw. The sections were then observed under binocular stereomicroscope at 20×. Two evaluators scored the depth of dye penetration independently at enamel and dentin margins.

Statistical Analysis:

Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric analysis followed by Dunn's multiple comparison tests were done to evaluate differences among the experimental groups. Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the difference between occlusal and gingival scores within each restoration.

Results:

Microleakage seen in decreasing order: Cention-N without adhesive >Flowable composite >Cention-N with adhesive.

Conclusion:

Microleakage at enamel restoration interface was less than microleakage at dentin restoration interface of each group, but the difference was not statistically significant. Least microleakage was seen with Cention-N with adhesive followed by flowable composite. More microleakage was seen with Cention-N without adhesive.

KEYWORDS:

Bonding agent; Cention-N; flowable composites; microleakage; polymerization shrinkage

PMID:
31397416
DOI:
10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_767_17
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Medknow Publications and Media Pvt Ltd
Loading ...
Support Center