Volume 14, Issue 1 ( Fall & winter 2018)
ijpd 2018, 14(1): 11-24 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Seraj B, Paryab M, rafiee oskouyi T, Hashemi kamangar S. Comparing the microleakage of Equia Fort Glass ionomer, Amalgam and composite resin in class II restorations of Pulpotomized Primary molars. ijpd 2018; 14 (1) :11-24
URL: http://jiapd.ir/article-1-201-en.html
URL: http://jiapd.ir/article-1-201-en.html
dentist international campus, school of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (2576 Views)
Background: The aesthetic aspect of crown restorations is currently a major challenge for dentists and parents. Given the different results in this area and the technical problems with the use of composite resins, a variety of resin-modified glass ionomers (RMGIs) have been proposed by manufacturers for the restoration of primary teeth. This study was conducted to compare the microleakage of Equia Forte RMGI, simple amalgam restorations and composite resin restorations in class II cavities in pulpotomized primary molars.
Materials and methods: Based on the inclusion criteria, 60 extracted first and second primary molars were collected and then cleaned and disinfected. The occlusoproximal class II cavities and the pulp chamber access cavity were prepared and a base made of ZOE cement was inserted. The teeth were then divided into three main groups through simple randomization; first group: self-cured glass ionomer cement base, etching, bonding and composite; second group: conditioner and Equia Forte RMGI; third group: amalgam. The samples underwent thermal cycles, and after sealing the apex, coating the dental surfaces with nail polish and staining with fuchsin solution, they were embedded into self-cure acrylic resin and cut mesiodistally. The edges of the restoration were examined in terms of dye penetration using a stereomicroscope, and the results obtained in the three groups were analyzed using the Kruskal Wallis test.
Results: The degree of microleakage was lower in the cervical edge of the samples in the amalgam group compared to in the composite and glass ionomer groups, although the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.781). The degree of occlusal microleakage was significantly lower in the samples in the composite group compared to in the glass ionomer and amalgam groups (P<0.001).
Conclusion: The Equia Forte RMGIs did not show any supremacy over the composite resins under in-vitro conditions, and they appear useful in extremely difficult clinical conditions and for uncooperative children.
Materials and methods: Based on the inclusion criteria, 60 extracted first and second primary molars were collected and then cleaned and disinfected. The occlusoproximal class II cavities and the pulp chamber access cavity were prepared and a base made of ZOE cement was inserted. The teeth were then divided into three main groups through simple randomization; first group: self-cured glass ionomer cement base, etching, bonding and composite; second group: conditioner and Equia Forte RMGI; third group: amalgam. The samples underwent thermal cycles, and after sealing the apex, coating the dental surfaces with nail polish and staining with fuchsin solution, they were embedded into self-cure acrylic resin and cut mesiodistally. The edges of the restoration were examined in terms of dye penetration using a stereomicroscope, and the results obtained in the three groups were analyzed using the Kruskal Wallis test.
Results: The degree of microleakage was lower in the cervical edge of the samples in the amalgam group compared to in the composite and glass ionomer groups, although the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.781). The degree of occlusal microleakage was significantly lower in the samples in the composite group compared to in the glass ionomer and amalgam groups (P<0.001).
Conclusion: The Equia Forte RMGIs did not show any supremacy over the composite resins under in-vitro conditions, and they appear useful in extremely difficult clinical conditions and for uncooperative children.
Type of Article: Research Article |
Subject:
General
Received: 2019/03/2 | Accepted: 2019/03/2 | Published: 2019/03/2
Received: 2019/03/2 | Accepted: 2019/03/2 | Published: 2019/03/2
References
1. McDonald, Ralph E, David R Avery, and Jeffrey A Dean. Dentistry For The Child And Adolescent. 5st ed., Mo.: Mosby/Elsevier, 2011.
2. AAPD Guidline on pulp therapy for primary and young permanent teeth. Pediatr Dent 2008; 30: 170-4.
3. Seale NS. The use of stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent 2002; 24: 501- 5.
4. Holan G, Fuks AB, Ketlz N. Success rate of formocresol pulpotomy in primary molars restored with stainless steel crown vs amalga. Pediatr Dent 2002 May-Jun; 24(3):212-6.
5. Guelmann M, Mjör IA. Materials and techniques for restoration of primary molars by pediatric dentists in Florida. Pediatr Dent. 2002 Jul-Aug; 24(4):326-31.
6. Zimmerman JA, Feigal RJ, Till MJ, Hodges JS. Parental attitudes on restorative materials as factors influencing current use in pediatric dentistry. Pediatr Dent 2009; 31: 63- 70.
7. Ram D, Fuks AB, Eidelman E. Long-term clinical performance of esthteic primary molar crown. Pediatr Dent 2003; 25: 582-4.
8. Hernandez R, Bader S, Boston D, Trope M. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated premolars restored with new generation dentine bonding systems. Int Endod J 1994 Nov; 27(6):281-4. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2591.1994.tb00269.x] [PMID]
9. Nagasiri R, Chitmongkolsuk S. Long-term survival of endodontically treated molars without crown coverage: a retrospective cohort study. J Prosthet Dent 2005 Feb; 93(2):164-70. [DOI:10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.11.001] [PMID]
10. Eakle WS. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with class II bonded composite resin. J Dent Res 1986 Feb; 65(2):149-53. [DOI:10.1177/00220345860650021201] [PMID]
11. Belli S, Zhang Y, Pereira PN, Pashley DH. Adhesive sealing of the pulp chamber. J Endod 2001 Aug; 27(8):521-6. [DOI:10.1097/00004770-200108000-00006] [PMID]
12. El-Kalla IH, García-Godoy F. Fracture strength of adhesively restored pulpotomized primary molars. ASDC J Dent Child. 1999 Jul-Aug; 66(4):238-42, 228.
13. Cantekin K, Gumus H. In vitro and clinical outcome of sandwich restorations with a bulk-fill flowable composite liner for pulpotomized primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2014 Summer; 38(4):349-54. [DOI:10.17796/jcpd.38.4.f718041225w7621q] [PMID]
14. Guelmann M, Bookmyer KL, Villalta P, García-Godoy F. Microleakage of restorative techniques for pulpotomized primary molars. J Dent Child (Chic) 2004 Sep-Dec; 71(3):209-11.
15. Cunha RF. "A thirty months clinical evaluation of a posterior composite resin in primary molars." The Journal of clinical pediatric dentistry24, no. 2 (1999): 113-115.
16. Rastelli FP, de Sousa Vieira R, Rastelli MC. "Posterior composite restorations in primary molars: an in vivo comparison of three restorative techniques." Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 2001; 25(3): 227-230. [DOI:10.17796/jcpd.25.3.251848tg66583963] [PMID]
17. Caceda JH. The use of resin-based composite restorations in pulpotomized primary molars.J Dent Child (Chic) 2007 May-Aug; 74(2):147-50.
18. Zulfikaroglu BT, Atac AS, Cehreli ZC. Clinical performance of Class II adhesive restorations in pulpectomized primary molars: 12-month results. J Dent Child (Chic) 2008 Jan-Apr; 75(1):33-43.
19. Shih WY. Microleakage in different primary tooth restorations. J Chin Med Assoc. 2016 Apr; 79(4):228-34. [DOI:10.1016/j.jcma.2015.10.007] [PMID]
20. Eidelman E, Fuks A, Chosack A: A clinical radiographic and SEM evaluation of class II composite restorations in primary teeth. Oper Dent 1989; 14: 58-63.
21. Fuks AB, Araujo FB, Osorio LB, Hadani PE, Pinto AS. Clinical and radiographic assessment of Class II esthetic restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent. 2000 Nov-Dec; 22(6):479-85.
22. Guelmann M, McIlwain MF, Primosch RE. Radiographic assessment of primary molar pulpotomies restored with resin-based materials. Pediatr Dent 2005 Jan-Feb; 27(1):24-7.
23. Shimazu K, Karibe H, Ogata K. Effect of artificial saliva contamination on adhesion of dental restorative materials. Dent Mater J 2014; 33(4):545-50. [DOI:10.4012/dmj.2014-007] [PMID]
24. Park SH, Kim KY. The anticariogenic effect of fluoride in primer, bonding agent, and composite resin in the cavosurface enamel area. Oper Dent 1997 May- Jun ; 22(3):115-20.
25. Sidhu SK. Clinical evaluations of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations. Dent Mater 2010 Jan; 26(1):7-12. [DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2009.08.015] [PMID]
26. Marquezan M, Fagundes TC, Toledano M, Navarro MF, Osorio R. Differential bonds degradation of two resin-modified glass-ionomer cements in primary and permanent teeth. J Dent 2009 Nov; 37(11):857-64. [DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2009.06.018] [PMID]
27. Basso M, Brambilla E, Benites MG, Giovannardi M, Ionescu AC. Glass Ionomer Cement for Permanent Dental Restorations: A 48-Month, Multi-Centre, Prospective Clinical Trial. Stoma Edu J. 2015; 2(1):25-35. [DOI:10.25241/stomaeduj.2015.2(1).art.1]
28. Vilkinis V, Hörsted-Bindslev P, Baelum V. Two-year evaluation of class II resin-modified glass ionomer cement/composite open sandwich and composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig. 2000 Sep; 4(3):133-9 [DOI:10.1007/s007840000075] [PMID]
29. Sengul F, Gurbuz T. Clinical Evaluation of Restorative Materials in Primary Teeth Class II Lesions. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015 Summer;39(4):315-21. [DOI:10.17796/1053-4628-39.4.315] [PMID]
30. Webman M, Mulki E, Roldan R, Arevalo O, Roberts JF, Garcia-Godoy F. A Retrospective Study of the 3-Year Survival Rate of Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement Class II Restorations in Primary Molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2016 Winter; 40(1):8-13 [DOI:10.17796/1053-4628-40.1.8] [PMID]
31. Rossomando, Kristi J., and Stanley L. Wendt. "Thermocycling and dwell times in microleakage evaluation for bonded restorations." Dental Materials11, no. 1 (1995): 47-51. [DOI:10.1016/0109-5641(95)80008-5]
32. Ilie N, Hickle R. Investigations on mechanical behaviour of dental composites. Clin Oral Investig 2009; 13: 427- 38.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0258-4 [DOI:10.1007/s00784-009-0274-4] [PMID]
33. Inaba D, Ruben J, Takagi O, Arends J. Effect of sodium hypochlorite treatment on remineralization of human dentin in vitro. Caries Res 1996; 30: 218-24. [DOI:10.1159/000262163] [PMID]
34. Yap AUJ, Shah KC, Loh ET, Sims S, Tan CC. Influence of ZOE temporary restorations on microleakage in composite restorations. Oper Dent 2002; 27: 142- 6.
35. Guelmann M, Shapira J, Silva DR, Fuks AB. Esthetic restorative options for pulpotomized primary molars: a review of literature. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2011 Winter; 36(2):123-6. [DOI:10.17796/jcpd.36.2.34h304265110137r] [PMID]
36. Seraj B, Shahrabi M, Motahari P, Ahmadi R, Ghadimi S, Mosharafian S et al. Micro leakage of stainless steel crowns placed on intact and extensively destroyed primary first molars: an in vitro study. Pediatr Dent 2011; 33: 525- 8.
37. Kidd, Edwina AM. "Microleakage: a review." Journal of dentistry 4, no. 5 (1976): 199-206. [DOI:10.1016/0300-5712(76)90048-8]
38. Davidson CL,leloup G,DeGee AJ. Self- repair of damaged glass ionomer cement. J Dent Res 1994; 73: 181.
39. Hse KM, Leung SK, Wei SH. Resin-ionomer restorative materials for children: a review. Aust Dent J 1999; 44(1):1-11. [DOI:10.1111/j.1834-7819.1999.tb00529.x] [PMID]
40. Qvist V. The effect of mastication on marginal adaptation of composite restorations in vivo. J Dent Res 1983; 62: 904-6. [DOI:10.1177/00220345830620081101] [PMID]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
