Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of G-Aenial, Bis-GMA Nanohybrid and Bis- GMA Microhybrid Flowable Composites in Class I Cavities – An in Vitro Study.
Pharmaceutical Science-Dental
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22376/ijlpr.2023.13.5.P116-P122Keywords:
G-aenial universal flo, tetric n flow, kulzer charisma flow, flowable composite, microleakage, nanohybrid,, microhybrid.Abstract
The most vulnerable area while restoring a tooth surface lies at the interphase between the restoration and the tooth margins.This area is the weakest junction in a tooth and serves as a potential pathway for microorganisms to invade into the tooth. This leads tofailures in existing restorations paving way for the initiation of secondary caries progression. An advanced restorative material bridges thisgap and seals off the weak interphasic junctions. Flowable composites having adequate strength and lesser polymerisation shrinkage werechosen. The aim of this study was to find a material having lesser microleakage deemed suitable for restorative purposes. Three types offlowable composites were chosen, which had the objective of being tested as a flowable material for evaluation of microleakage amongstthe three tested groups. Dye penetration test was carried out to evaluate the amount of microleakage occurring under flowable resinswhich were then evaluated under a light reflecting digital compound microscope. A total of 45 extracted human premolars were selectedfor the study; scoring of specimens was done with the help of an Ordinal scale to detect microleakage. The results obtained from thestudy was that G-aenial Universal Flo, performed superior than Tetric N flow which was then followed by Kulzer Charisma Flo whichshowed highest dye penetration. The amount of dye penetration reflects directly the microleakage occuring at the interphases ofrestoration. The novelty of this study lies in the fact that this is one of its kind of study evaluating the amount of microleakage occurringbetween three different flowable composites. It was concluded that G-aenial Universal Flo, showed the least amount of microleakagewhen compared against two similar flowable composites to provide an adequate marginal seal.Keywords: , , , , ,
References
Baroudi K, Rodrigues JC. Flowable resin composites: a systematic review and clinical considerations. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015 Jun;9(6):ZE18-24. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/12294.6129, PMID 26266238.
Nair SR, Niranjan NT, Jayasheel A, Suryakanth DB. Comparative Evaluation of Colour Stability and Surface Hardness of Methacrylate Based Flowable and Packable Composite -In vitro Study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 Mar;11(3):ZC51-4. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/21982.9576, PMID 28511509.
Beun S, Bailly C, Devaux J, Leloup G. Physical, mechanical and rheological characterization of resin-based pit and fissure sealants compared to flowable resin composites. Dent Mater. 2012 Apr 1;28(4):349-59. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.11.001, PMID 22119547.
Braga RR, Hilton TJ, Ferracane JL. Contraction stress of flowable composite materials and their efficacy as stress-relieving layers. J Am Dent Assoc. 2003;134(6):721-28. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0258, PMID 12839408.
[cited 12/9/2013]Available from: http://www.gceurope.com/pid/148/manual/en_Manual.pdf.
Usha C, Rao SR, George GM. A comparative evaluation of the staining capacity of microhybrid and nanohybrid resin-based composite to Indian spices and food colorants: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res. 2018 Mar 1;29(2):201-5. doi: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_764_16, PMID 29652015.
Meshram P, Meshram V, Palve D, Patil S, Gade V, Raut A. 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. Indian J Dent Res. 2019 May 1;30(3):403-7. doi: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_767_17, PMID 31397416.
Mustafa M, Jeaidi AZ, Muhaiza M. Microleakage evaluation in restorations using different resin composite insertion techniques and liners in preparations with high C-factor-An in vitro study. World. 39Baig MM. J Dent. 2013;4:57-64.
Santhosh L, Bashetty K, Nadig G. The influence of different composite placement techniques on microleakage in preparations with high C- factor: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2008;11(3):112-6. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.45249, PMID 20142897.
Meshram P, Meshram V, Palve D, Patil S, Gade V, Raut A. 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. Indian J Dent Res. 2019;30(3):403-7. doi: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_767_17, PMID 31397416.
Jacker-Guhr S, Ibarra G, Oppermann LS, Lührs AK, Rahman A, Geurtsen W. Evaluation of microleakage in Class V composite restorations using dye penetration and micro-CT. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20(7):1709-18. doi: 10.1007/s00784-015-1676-0, PMID 26637997.
Jang JH, Park SH, Hwang IN. Polymerization shrinkage and depth of cure of bulk-fill resin composites and highly filled flowable resin. Oper Dent. 2015;40(2):172-80. doi: 10.2341/13-307-L, PMID 25136904.
Tarcin Bİ, Gumru Bİ, Peker S, Ovecoglu HS. Evaluation of radiopacity of bulk-fill flowable composites using digital radiography. Oper Dent. 2016;41(4):424-31. doi: 10.2341/15-153-L, PMID 27045286.
Malmström HS, Schlueter M, Roach T, Moss ME. Effect of thickness of flowable resins on marginal leakage in class II composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2002 Jul 1;27(4):373-80. PMID 12120775.
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 May 1;22(3):495. doi: 10.4103/0970-9290.87082, PMID 22048600.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2023 Mrinal Nadgouda, Aditya Patel, Shraddha Patel, Pradnya Nikhade, Manoj Chandak, Ladusingh Rajpurohit, Swayangprabha Sarangi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.