Microleakage evaluation of giomer flowable composites and adhesive systems in Class V cavities

Year 2014, Volume: 31 Issue: 1, 18 - 22, 25.02.2014

Nihan Gönülol , Sezin Özer Neslihan Demirel

https://doi.org/10.17214/aot.80802

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the microleakage of a giomer-based flowable composite resin and an adhesive system, and their combination with a conventional flowable composite resin and an adhesive system in Class V cavities.

MATERIALS AND METHOD: Standardized Class V cavities (mesial-distal width: 4 mm, occlusal-gingival width: 3 mm, depth: 2 mm) were prepared on the buccal and lingual sides of 20 human third molars. The teeth were randomly divided into 4 groups containing 10 cavities each. Giomer adhesive system FL-Bond II and flowable composite Beautifil Flow Plus and conventional adhesive system Clearfil SE Bond and flowable composite Filtek Ultimate were used as follows; Group FLB: FL-Bond II+Beautifil Flow Plus, Group FLU: FL-Bond II+Filtek Ultimate, Group SEB: Clearfil SE Bond+Beautifil Flow Plus, Group SEU: Clearfil SE Bond+Filtek Ultimate. The teeth were subjected to 1000 thermal cycles between 5-55 ^oC and then immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin solution for 24 h. The dye penetration was examined under a stereomisroscope and scored. The results were statistically analyzed by using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests.

RESULTS: Significant differences were detected both in enamel and in dentin (p<0.05). In dentin, Group FLB exhibited significantly higher microleakage scores than the other groups (p<0.05). In enamel, Group SEU exhibited significantly higher microleakage scores than Group FLB and Group SEB (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION: In dentin, combination of both type of flowable composites with the 10-MDP-containing conventional adhesive system (Clearfil SE Bond) caused less microleakage. In enamel, regardless of the type of the adhesive system groups restored with the giomer composite exhibited less microleakage.

Keywords

Composite Resins, Dental Leakage, Flowable Hybrid Composite, Giomer, Fluoride

Giomer yapıdaki akışkan kompozit ve adeziv sistemin Sınıf V kavitelerde mikrosızıntı açısından değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

AMAÇ: Giomer yapıdaki akışkan kompozit rezin ve adeziv
sistemin ve bunların geleneksel yapıdaki akışkan kompozit
rezin ve adeziv sistemle kombinasyonunun Sınıf V kavitelerde
mikrosızıntı açısından karşılaştırılmasıdır.
GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM: Yirmi adet insan 3. büyük azı dişlerinin
bukkal ve lingual yüzeylerine standart Sınıf V kaviteler
(mezio-distal genişlik: 4 mm, okluzo-gingival genişlik: 3 mm,
derinlik: 2 mm) açıldı. Dişler her grupta 10 kavite olacak şekilde
rastgele dört gruba ayrıldı. Giomer yapıdaki FL-Bond
II adeziv sistem ve Beautifil Flow Plus akışkan kompozit ile
geleneksel yapıdaki Clearfil SE Bond adeziv sistem ve Filtek
Ultimate akışkan kompozit kullanılarak dişler şu şekilde restore
edildi; Grup FLB: FL-Bond II+Beautifil Flow Plus, Grup
FLU: FL-Bond II+Filtek Ultimate, Grup SEB: Clearfil SE
Bond+Beautifil Flow Plus, Grup SEU: Clearfil SE Bond+Filtek
Ultimate. Dişler, 5-55 oC’de 1000 kere termal eskitmenin
ardından %0.5 lik bazik fuksin çözeltisi içinde 24 saat süresince
bekletildi. Boya sızıntısı stereomikroskop altında de-
ğerlendirilerek skorlandı. Verilerin değerlendirilmesinde
Kruskal-Wallis Testi ve Mann-Whitney U testleri kullanıldı.
BULGULAR: Gruplar arasında mikrosızıntı değerlerinde hem
minede hem de dentinde fark bulundu (p < 0.05). Grup FLB,
dentinde diğer gruplardan anlamlı bir şekilde daha fazla sızıntı gösterdi (p < 0.05). Grup SEU, minede Grup FLB ve
Grup SEB’den anlamlı bir şekilde daha fazla sızıntı gösterdi
(p < 0.05).
SONUÇ: Her iki kompozit grubunun, yapısında 10-MDP monomeri
içeren geleneksel tipteki adeziv sistemle (Clearfil
SE Bond) kombinasyonu dentinde daha az mikrosızıntıya
sebep oldu. Minede ise giomer kompozitin uygulandığı
gruplarda adezivin tipi fark etmeksizin daha az mikrosızıntı
olduğu sonucuna varıldı.

Keywords

Akışkan Hibrid Kompozit, Florit, Giomer, Kompozit Rezinler, Dental Sızıntı

References

• Saku S, Kotake H, Scougall-Vilchis RJ, Ohashi S, Hotta M, Horiuchi S, et al. Antibacterial activity of composite resin with glass-ionomer filler particles. Dent Mater J 2010;29:193-8.
• Seppä L, Torppa-Saarinen E, Luoma H. Effect of different glass ionomers on the acid production and electrolyte metabolism of Streptococcus mutans Ingbritt. Caries Res 1992;26:434-8.
• Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T. Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials--fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation. Dent Mater 2007;23:343-62.
• Papacchini F, Goracci C, Sadek FT, Monticelli F, Garcia-Godoy F, Ferrari M. Microtensile bond strength to ground enamel by glass-ionomers, resin-modified glass-ionomers, and resin composites used as pit and fissure sealants. J Dent 2005;33:459-67.
• Tian F, Yap AU, Wang X, Gao X. Effect of staining solutions on color of pre-reacted glass-ionomer containing composites. Dent Mater J 2012;31:384-8.
• Kimyai S, Savadi-Oskoee S, Ajami AA, Sadr A, Asdagh S. Effect of three prophylaxis methods on surface roughness of giomer. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011;16:e110-4.
• Bonilla ED, Stevenson RG, Caputo AA, White SN. Microleakage resistance of minimally invasive Class I flowable composite restorations. Oper Dent 2012;37:290-8.
• Awliya WY, El-Sahn AM. Leakage pathway of Class V cavities restored with different flowable resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2008;33:31-6.
• Kugel G, Perry R. Direct composite resins: an update. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2002;23:593-8.
• Siso HS, Kustarci A, Göktolga EG. Microleakage in resin composite restorations after antimicrobial pre-treatments: effect of KTP laser, chlorhexidine gluconate and Clearfil Protect Bond. Oper Dent 2009;34:321-7.
• Nilgun Ozturk A, Usumez A, Ozturk B, Usumez S. Influence of different light sources on microleakage of class V composite resin restorations. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:500-4.
• Arisu HD, Uçtasli MB, Eligüzeloglu E, Ozcan S, Omürlü H. The effect of occlusal loading on the microleakage of Class V restorations. Oper Dent 2008;33:135-41.
• Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Marginal sealing of curing contraction gaps in Class V composite resin restorations. J Dent Res 1988;67:841-5.
• Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Complete marginal seal of Class V resin composite restorations effected by increased flexibility. J Dent Res 1990;69:1240-3.
• Jain P, Belcher M. Microleakage of Class II resin-based composite restorations with flowable composite in the proximal box. Am J Dent 2000;13:235-8.
• Chuang SF, Liu JK, Chao CC, Liao FP, Chen YH. Effects of flowable composite lining and operator experience on microleakage and internal voids in Class II composite restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:177-83.
• Kooi TJ, Tan QZ, Yap AU, Guo W, Tay KJ, Soh MS. Effects of foodsimulating liquids on surface properties of giomer restoratives. Oper Dent 2012;37:665-71.
• Naoum S, Ellakwa A, Martin F, Swain M. Fluoride release, recharge and mechanical property stability of various fluoride-containing resin composites. Oper Dent 2011;36:422-32.
• Dionysopoulos P, Kotsanos N, Koliniotou-Koubia E, Tolidis K. Inhibition of demineralization in vitro around fluoride releasing materials. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:1216-22.
• Sabatini C. Effect of phosphoric acid etching on the shear bond strength of two self-etch adhesives. J Appl Oral Sci 2013;21:56-62.
• Naoum S, O'Regan J, Ellakwa A, Benkhart R, Swain M, Martin E. The effect of repeated fluoride recharge and storage media on bond durability of fluoride rechargeable Giomer bonding agent. Aust Dent J 2012;57:178-83.
• Gordan VV, Mondragon E, Watson RE, Garvan C, Mjör IA. A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material: results at eight years. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138:621-7.
• Yoshida Y, Nagakane K, Fukuda R, Nakayama Y, Okazaki M, Shintani H, et al. Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers. J Dent Res 2004;83:454-8.
• Filtek Ultimate Flowable Restorative technical product profile (3M ESPE); p.6-7.