Modern Clinical Medicine Research

Download PDF (145 KB) PP. 49 - 54 Pub. Date: October 11, 2017

DOI: 10.22606/mcmr.2017.13001

• H. Esra Ülker^*
  Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey
• Nuray Günaydın
  Mouth and dental health center, Ankara, Turkey
• Ali Ihsan Erkan
  Private Practice, Konya, Turkey
• Firdevs Kahvecioğlu
  Department of Pedodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey
• Mustafa Ülker
  Private Practice, Konya, Turkey

Purpose: This in vitro study evaluated the microleakage of glass carbomer (Glass Fill, GCP Dental, Vianen, Netherlands), resin-modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC, GC, Japan) and selfadhering flowable composite (Vertise Flow, Kerr, USA) materials. Materials And Methods: Class V cavities were prepared in the occlusal margin of enamel and gingival margin of dentin on both buccal and lingual surfaces of 45 human molar teeth and restored with self-adhering materials according to manufacturers’ directions (n=15). The specimens were immersed in 2% basic fuchsine dye at 37ºC for 24 hours. The teeth were sectioned into two pieces buccolingually in an occlusoapical direction and evaluated for microleakage using a stereo microscope (30×) and the degree of microleakage was evaluated using specific scoring criteria. The data were analyzed using KruskalWallis, Mann-Whitney U, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Results: When the self-adhering materials were compared, Glass Fill showed the highest leakage scores but was statistically different from only Vertise flow in the gingival surfaces (p<0.05). In the occlusal surfaces all tested selfadhering materials exhibited similar degrees of microleakage at the enamel margins (p>0.05). Conclusion: Glass Carbomer based self-adhering material showed more microleakage than resin based self adhering materials in the gingival surfaces, but in the occlusal surfaces all of the tested materials showed good performance.

Self-adhering materials, glass carbomer, microleakage.

[1] Sakaguchi RL and Powers JM. Craig's restorative dental materials. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2012.

[2] Prabhakar A, Raju O, Kurthukoti AJ, Satish V. Evaluation of the clinical behavior of resin modified glass ionomer cement on primary molars: a comparative one-year study. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice 2008;9(2):130-37.

[3] Van Duinen RN, Davidson CL, De Gee AJ, Feilzer AJ. In situ transformation of glass-ionomer into an enamellike material. American journal of dentistry 2004;17(4):223-7.

[4] Cehreli SB, Tirali RE, Yalcinkaya Z, Cehreli ZC. Microleakage of newly developed glass carbomer cement in primary teeth. Eur J Dent 2013;7(1):15-21.

[5] Kleverlaan CJ, van Duinen RN, Feilzer AJ. Mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements affected by curing methods. Dental Materials 2004;20(1):45-50.

[6] Algera T, Kleverlaan C, De Gee A, Prahl-Andersen B, Feilzer A. The influence of accelerating the setting rate by ultrasound or heat on the bond strength of glass ionomers used as orthodontic bracket cements. European Journal of Orthodontics 2005;27(5):472-76.

[7] O'Brien T, Shoja-Assadi F, Lea SC, Burke FT, Palin WM. Extrinsic energy sources affect hardness through depth during set of a glass-ionomer cement. Journal of dentistry 2010;38(6):490-95.

[8] Sadeghi M. An in vitro microleakage study of class V cavities restored with a new self-adhesive flowable composite resin versus different flowable materials. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2012;9(4):460–65

[9] Wei Y-j, Silikas N, Zhang Z-t, Watts DC. Diffusion and concurrent solubility of self-adhering and new resin–matrix composites during water sorption/desorption cycles. Dental materials 2011;27(2):197-205.

[10] Wei Y-j, Silikas N, Zhang Z-t, Watts DC. Hygroscopic dimensional changes of self-adhering and new resin-matrix composites during water sorption/desorption cycles. Dental materials 2011;27(3):259-66.

[11] Bektas OO, Eren D, Akin EG, Akin H. Evaluation of a self-adhering flowable composite in terms of micro-shear bond strength and microleakage. ActaOdontolScand 2013;71(3-4):541-6.

[12] Goracci C, Margvelashvili M, Giovannetti A, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with a new self-adhering flowable resin composite. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17(2):609-17.

[13] Alani AH, Toh CG. Detection of microleakage around dental restorations: A review. Operative Dentistry 1997;22(4):173-85.

[14] Bermudez L, Wajdowicz M, Ashcraft-Olmscheid D, Vandewalle K. Effect of Selective Etch on the Bond Strength of Composite to Enamel Using a Silorane Adhesive. Operative Dentistry 2015.

[15] Vichi A, Margvelashvili M, Goracci C, Papacchini F, Ferrari M. Bonding and sealing ability of a new selfadhering flowable composite resin in class I restorations. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17(6):1497-506.

[16] Wei YJ, Silikas N, Zhang ZT, Watts DC. Hygroscopic dimensional changes of self-adhering and new resin-matrix composites during water sorption/desorption cycles. Dental materials 2011;27(3):259-66.

[17] Poss SD. Utilization of a new self-adhering flowable composite resin. Dent Today. 2010;29(4):104–105. [PubMed]

[18] Kerr Sybron Dental Specialties. Vertise Flow: Self-Adhering Flowable Composite. Technical Bulletin. Orange, CA: Kerr Sybron Dental Specialties; 2010. [Accessed January 28, 2015]. Available from:http://www.kerrdental.com/cms-filesystem-action/KerrDental-products-techinfo/vertiseflow_techbulletin_34929b.pdf.

[19] Pereira LC, Nunes MC, Dibb RG, Powers JM, Roulet JF, Navarro MF. Mechanical properties and bond strength of glass-ionomer cements. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2002;4(1):73-80.

[20] Bala O, Arisu HD, Yikilgan I, Arslan S, Gullu A. Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements. European journal of dentistry 2012;6(1):79-86.

[21] Brentegani LG, Bombonato KF, Carvalho TL. Histological evaluation of the biocompatibility of a glass-ionomer cement in rat alveolus. Biomaterials 1997;18(2):137-40.

[22] Moshaverinia A, Ansari S, Movasaghi Z, Billington RW, Darr JA, Rehman IU. Modification of conventional glass-ionomer cements with N-vinylpyrrolidone containing polyacids, nano-hydroxy and fluoroapatite to improve mechanical properties. Dental materials 2008;24(10):1381-90.

[23] Garcia-Contreras R, Scougall-Vilchis RJ, Contreras-Bulnes R, Sakagami H, Morales-Luckie RA, Nakajima H.Mechanical, antibacterial and bond strength properties of nano-titanium-enriched glass ionomer cement. Journal of Applied Oral Science 2015;23(3):321-8.

[24] Lin J, Zhu J, Gu X, Wen W, Li Q, Fischer-Brandies H, et al. Effects of incorporation of nano-fluorapatite or nano-fluorohydroxyapatite on a resin-modified glass ionomer cement. ActaBiomaterialia Journal 2011;7(3):1346-53.

[25] Diwanji A, Dhar V, Arora R, Madhusudan A, Rathore AS. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three restorative glass ionomer cements: An in vitro study. Journal of Natural Science, Biology and Medicine 2014;5(2):373-7.

[26] 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. ContempClin Dent 2012;3(3):282-7.

[27] Dinakaran S. Evaluation of the Effect of Different Food Media on the Marginal Integrity of Class V Compomer, Conventional and Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Restorations: An In Vitro Study. Journal of International Oral Health 2015;7(3):53-58.

[28] Ruyter IE, Sj?vik IJ. Composition of dental resin and composite materials. ActaOdontolScand 1981;39(3):133-46.