Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year
: 2021  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 1210--1214

Evaluation of Class II restoration microleakage with various restorative materials: A comparative In vitro study


Madhura Pawar1, Muhammad Atif Saleem Agwan2, Bushra Ghani3, Megha Khatri4, Pooja Bopache5, Mian Salman Aziz6 
1 Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Dr. D. Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Restorative Dentistry, College of Dentistry in Alrass, Qassim University, Qassim, KSA
3 Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Altamash Institute of Dental Medicine, Karachi, Pakistan
4 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, SMBT Institute of Dental Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra, India
5 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rungta College of Dental Sciences and Research, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, India
6 Department of Dental Materials, Institute of Dentistry, CMH, Lahore, Pakistan

Correspondence Address:
Madhura Pawar
Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Dr. D. Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, Maharashtra
India

Background and Objectives: The quest for a suitable esthetic material for tooth restoration has resulted in significant advancements in both material properties and application technique. Composites and acid-etch procedures are two significant advancements in esthetic restorative dentistry. Further research has strengthened composites' overall wear resistance and strength, but the problem of polymerization shrinkage has persisted. To reduce polymerization shrinkage and microleakage, a variety of techniques and material modifications have been suggested. The marginal leakage of amalgam, packable composite, flowable composite with packable composite, and high-viscosity traditional glass ionomer cement (GIC) was compared in this analysis to test the mentioned hypothesis. Materials and Methods: We chose 60 freshly extracted teeth and divided them into four classes of 15 teeth each. Class II cavities were prepared in a standardized manner. Group I was treated with amalgam, Group II with packable composite (GC G-aenial Posterior), Group III with flowable composite (G-aenial Universal Flo) as a liner and then restored with packable composite (GC G-aenial Posterior), and Group IV with high-viscosity traditional GIC (EQUI FORTE FILL). After that, the restorations were put through a thermocycling process. The specimens were soaked in 0.5% methylene blue dye before being cut into mesiodistal sections to assess microleakage at the gingival margin. After that, the parts were examined under a stereomicroscope. The degree of dye penetration was used to determine the score. Results: There was no microleakage in the control group, and the gap between the control and experimental groups was statistically significant (P = 0.017). Conclusion: The glass hybrid restorative device had less gingival microleakage than the resin-based restorative material, indicating that it has a better sealing capacity. Clinical acceptability of glass hybrid restorative systems, on the other hand, must be confirmed with a larger sample size and in vivo trials.


How to cite this article:
Pawar M, Saleem Agwan MA, Ghani B, Khatri M, Bopache P, Aziz MS. Evaluation of Class II restoration microleakage with various restorative materials: A comparative In vitro study.J Pharm Bioall Sci 2021;13:1210-1214


How to cite this URL:
Pawar M, Saleem Agwan MA, Ghani B, Khatri M, Bopache P, Aziz MS. Evaluation of Class II restoration microleakage with various restorative materials: A comparative In vitro study. J Pharm Bioall Sci [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 Oct 2 ];13:1210-1214
Available from: https://www.jpbsonline.org/article.asp?issn=0975-7406;year=2021;volume=13;issue=6;spage=1210;epage=1214;aulast=Pawar;type=0