Microleakage at enamel and dentin margins with a bulk fills flowable resin

 

PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the marginal sealing ability of a bulk fill flowable resin composite on both enamel and dentin substrates. Materials and Methods: 48 non-carious molars were selected and four Class-V cavities were prepared at the CEJ of each sample. Cavities were filled with Venus Diamond (Heraeus Kulzer); Venus Diamond Flow (Heraeus Kulzer) and Surefil SDR (Dentsply). Samples were divided into two groups: First group samples were immersed in a methylene blue solution for 30 min at 25°C. Second group samples were artificially aged and then treated with methylene blue. Samples were sectioned in the center of the restoration and observed with a 40x stereomicroscope, and the percentage of cavity infiltration was calculated. Results: Results were analyzed statistically by ANOVA (P < 0.05). The amount of infiltration was significantly lower for the enamel substrate compared with dentin (P = 0.0001) and in samples immediately immersed in methylene blue compared with those that were artificially aged (P = 0.011). The interaction between the composite material and the marginal substrate significantly affected dye penetration (P = 0.006). Conclusions: Bulk fill flowable resins provided significantly better marginal seal in dentin, both before and after artificial ageing. Nanohybrid resin composites and bulk fill flowable resins showed similar microleakage values at enamel margins. Bulk fills flowable resins provided significantly better marginal seal in dentin, both before and after artificial ageing. Nanohybrid resin composites and bulk fill flowable resins showed similar microleakage values at enamel margins.

• REFERENCES

• 1 Ferracane JL. Resin composite – State of the art. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 29-38
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 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: 306-11
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Labella R, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G. Polymerization shrinkage and elasticity of flowable composites and filled adhesives. Dent Mater 1999; 15: 128-37
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Stavridakis MM, Dietschi D, Krejci I. Polymerization shrinkage of flowable resin-based restorative materials. Oper Dent 2005; 30: 118-28
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Watts DC, Marouf AS, Al-Hindi AM. Photo-polymerization shrinkage-stress kinetics in resin-composites: Methods development. Dent Mater 2003; 19: 1-11
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Cadenaro M, Breschi L, Rueggeberg FA, Suchko M, Grodin E, Agee K. et al. Effects of residual ethanol on the rate and degree of conversion of five experimental resins. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 621-8
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Hilton TJ. Can modern restorative procedures and materials reliably seal cavities? In vitro investigations. Part 1. Am J Dent 2002; 15: 198-210
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Kwon OH, Kim DH, Park SH. The influence of elastic modulus of base material on the marginal adaptation of direct composite restoration. Oper Dent 2010; 35: 441-7
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Krämer N, García-Godoy F, Frankenberger R. Evaluation of resin composite materials. Part II: in vivo investigations. Am J Dent 2005; 18: 75-81
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Wibowo G, Stockton L. Microleakage of Class II composite restorations. Am J Dent 2001; 14: 177-85
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Ozel E, Korkmaz Y, Attar N. Influence of location of the gingival margin on the microleakage and internal voids of nanocomposites. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9: 65-72
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Cardoso MV, de Almeida Neves A, Mine A, Coutinho E, Van Landuyt K, De Munck J. et al. Current aspects on bonding effectiveness and stability in adhesive dentistry. Aust Dent J 2011; 56 (Suppl. 01) 31-44
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Loguercio AD, Moura SK, Pellizzaro A, Dal-Bianco K, Patzlaff RT, Grande RH. et al. Durability of enamel bonding using two-step self-etch systems on ground and unground enamel. Oper Dent 2008; 33: 79-88
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Pashley DH. Smear layer: Physiological considerations. Oper Dent Suppl 1984; 3: 13-29
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Van Landuyt KL, Mine A, De Munck J, Jaecques S, Peumans M, Lambrechts P. et al. Are one-step adhesives easier to use and better performing?. Multifactorial assessment of contemporary one-step self-etching adhesives. J Adhes Dent 2009; 11: 175-90
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Ilie N, Hickel R. Investigations on a methacrylate-based flowable composite based on the SDR™ technology. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 348-55
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Kidd EA. Microleakage: a review. J Dent 1976; 4: 199-206
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Ernst CP, Galler P, Willershausen B, Haller B. Marginal integrity of class V restorations: SEM versus dye penetration. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 319-27
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Ghasemi A, Torabzadeh H, Mahdian M, Afkar M, Fazeli A, Akbarzadeh Baghban A. Effect of bonding application time on the microleakage of Class V sandwich restorations. Aust Dent J 2012; 57: 334-8
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Kusgoz A, Ülker M, Yesilyurt C, Yoldas OH, Ozil M, Tanriver M. Silorane-based composite: Depth of cure, surface hardness, degree of conversion, and cervical microleakage in Class II cavities. J Esthet Restor Dent 2011; 23: 324-35
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 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
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 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: 308-13
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Bedran de Castro AK, Pimenta LA, Amaral CM, Ambrosano GM. Evaluation of microleakage in cervical margins of various posterior restorative systems. J Esthet Restor Dent 2002; 14: 107-14
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Abd El Halim S, Zaki D. Comparative evaluation of microleakage among three different glass ionomer types. Oper Dent 2011; 36: 36-42
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Umer F, Naz F, Khan FR. An in vitro evaluation of microleakage in class V preparations restored with hybrid versus silorane composites. J Conserv Dent 2011; 14: 103-7
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 De Munck J, Shirai K, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P. et al. Effect of water storage on the bonding effectiveness of 6 adhesives to Class I cavity dentin. Oper Dent 2006; 31: 456-65
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Atoui JA, Chinelatti MA, Palma-Dibb RG, Corona SA. Microleakage in conservative cavities varying the preparation method and surface treatment. J Appl Oral Sci 2010; 18: 421-5
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Pashley DH, Tay FR, Breschi L, Tjäderhane L, Carvalho RM, Carrilho M. et al. State of the art etch-and-rinse adhesives. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 1-16
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Cadenaro M, Marchesi G, Antoniolli F, Davidson C, De Stefano DorigoE, Breschi L. Flowability of composites is no guarantee for contraction stress reduction. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 649-54
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Sadeghi M. Influence of flowable materials on microleakage of nanofilled and hybrid Class II composite restorations with LED and QTH LCUs. Indian J Dent Res 2009; 20: 159-63
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Ikeda I, Otsuki M, Sadr A, Nomura T, Kishikawa R, Tagami J. Effect of filler content of flowable composites on resin-cavity interface. Dent Mater J 2009; 28: 679-85
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Carvalho RM, Manso AP, Geraldeli S, Tay FR, Pashley DH. Durability of bonds and clinical success of adhesive restorations. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 72-86
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Geis-Gerstorfer J. In vitro corrosion measurements of dental alloys. J Dent 1994; 22: 247-51
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Kidd E. Essentials of Dental Caries: The Disease and its Management. 3rd ed.. Oxford UK: OUP Oxford; 2005
  Google Scholar
• 35 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
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Wahab FK, Shaini FJ, Morgano SM. The effect of thermocycling on microleakage of several commercially available composite Class V restorations in vitro . J Prosthet Dent 2003; 90: 168-74
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Versluis A, Douglas WH, Sakaguchi RL. Thermal expansion coefficient of dental composites measured with strain gauges. Dent Mater 1996; 12: 290-4
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Nalcaci A, Ulusoy N. Effect of thermocycling on microleakage of resin composites polymerized with LED curing techniques. Quintessence Int 2007; 38: e433-9
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 39 Brackett WW, Haisch LD, Pearce MG, Brackett MG. Microleakage of Class V resin composite restorations placed with self-etching adhesives. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 91: 42-5
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 40 Manhart J, Chen HY, Mehl A, Weber K, Hickel R. Marginal quality and microleakage of adhesive class V restorations. J Dent 2001; 29: 123-30
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 41 Saboia VP, Silva FC, Nato F, Mazzoni A, Cadenaro M, Mazzotti G. et al. Analysis of differential artificial ageing of the adhesive interface produced by a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. Eur J Oral Sci 2009; 117: 618-24
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar