MICROLEAKAGE EVALUATION OF BULK-FILL COMPOSITE IN CLASS II RESTORATIONS OF PRIMARY MOLARS

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 B.D.S. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Science and Technology, Sudan.

2 Professor of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.

3 Associate Professor of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

4 Professor of Dental Biomaterial, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Bulk-fill composites are promising restorative materials which may minimize placement time yet provide successful, durable esthetic restoration. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate marginal microleakage of nano-hybrid bulk-fill composite, and compare it to incrementally placed conventional nano-hybrid composite when used to restore proximal cavities in primary molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 44 freshly extracted sound primary molars. Standardized proximal cavity preparations were prepared and the sample was divided randomly into 2 equal groups: Group I (n=22): Teeth were restored with nano-hybrid bulk-fill composite, Group II (n=22): Teeth were restored with incrementally placed conventional nano-hybrid composite. All specimens were thermocycled and immersed in 2% methylene blue dye at 37C˚ for 24 hours. Methylene blue penetration was assessed on a 4 point grading scale (0 to 3) using a stereomicroscope to evaluate the microleakage of the restorations. Data were statistically analyzed using Mann-Whitney test and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference has been found in the microleakage scores of group I at occlusal and cervical margin (p=1.000). In group II, no statistically significant difference has been found in the microleakage scores between occlusal and cervical margins (P=0.366). Comparing the microleakage scores of group I and group II, no statistically significant difference has been found (p=0.240). Although no significant difference was detected, bulk- fill composite showed lower microleakage scores than incrementally placed conventional composite. CONCLUSIONS: Bulk-fill composite restoration marginal integrity was comparable to incrementally placed conventional composite in proximal cavities of primary molars.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Yoonis E, Kukletová M. Tooth-colored dental restorative materials in primary dentition. Scripta Medica. 2009; 82:108-114.
  2. Chadwick BL, Evans DJ. Restoration of class II cavities in primary molar teeth with conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2007; 8:14–21.
  3. Bowen RL. Composite and sealant resins-past, present, and future. Pediatr Dent. 1982; 4:10–5.
  4. Abed YA, Sabry HA, Alrobeigy NA. Degree of conversion and surface hardness of bulk-fill composite versus incremental-fill composite. Tanta Dent J. 2015; 12:71–80.
  5. de Andrade OS, Mario F, Montes MA. Marginal adaptation and microtensile bond strength of composite indirect restorations bonded to dentin treated with adhesive and lowviscosity composite. Dent Mater. 2007; 23:279–87.
  6. Poggio C, Chiesa M, Scribante A, Mekler J, Colombo M. Microleakage in Class II composite restorations with margins below the CEJ: In vitro evaluation of different restorative techniques. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013; 18:793–8
  7. Aschheim, Kenneth W. Esthetic dentistry: A clinical approach to techniques and materials. 3rd ed., St. Louis, Elsevier Mosby, 2015.
  8. Webber, Marin, Progiante, Marson. Bulk-fill resin-based composites: Microleakage of class II restorations. JSCD. 2014; 2:15–9.
  9. Jain A, Deepti D, Tavane PN, Singh A, Gupta P, Gupta A, Sonkusre S. Evaluation of microleakage of recent nanohybrid composites in class V restorations: An in vitro study. Int J Adv Health Sci. 2015; 2:8-12.
  10. Gonçalves MA, Teixeira VC, Rodrigues SS, de Oliveira RS, Salvio LA. Evaluation of the roughness of composite resins submitted to different surface treatments. Acta Odontol Latinoam. 2012; 25:89–95.
  11. Opdam NJ, Roeters JJ, Peters TC, Burgersdijk RC, Teunis M. Cavity wall adaptation and voids in adhesive Class I restorations. Dent Mater. 1996; 12:230-5.
  12. Lowe RA. Advances in composite resin materials. The material science behind modern restoratives. INSIDE DENTISTRY. 2015; 11:1-6.
  13. Do T, Church B, Veríssimo C, Hackmyer SP, Tantbirojn D, Simon JF, Versluis A. Cuspal flexure, depth-of-cure, and bond integrity of bulk-fill composites. Pediatr Dent 2014; 36:468-73.
  14. Campos EA, Ardu S, Lefever D, Jassé FF, Bortolotto T, Krejci I. Marginal adaptation of class II cavities restored with bulk-fill composites. J Dent. 2014; 42:575–81.
  15. Al Azmi MM, Hashem MI, Assery MK, Al Sayed MSE. An in-vitro Evaluation of the mechanical properties and surface roughness of bulk fill vs incremental fill resin composites. Int J Prev Clin Dent Res. 2017; 4:1-6.
  16. Abouelleil H, Pradelle N, Villat C, Attik N, Colon P, Grosgogeat B. Comparison of mechanical properties of a new fiber reinforced composite and bulk filling composites. Restor Dent Endod. 2015; 40:262–70.
  17. Bunek SS. Update on Composites. The Dental Advisor. 2015; 32:2-7.
  18. Colak H, Tokay U, Uzgur R, Hamidi MM, Ercan E. A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of one nano-hybrid and one high-viscosity bulk-fill composite restorative systems in class II cavities: 12 months results. Niger J Clin Pract. 2017; 20:822–31.
  19. El-Damanhoury H, Platt J. Polymerization shrinkage stress kinetics and related properties of bulk-fill resin composites. Oper Dent. 2014; 39:374–82.
  20. Kim H, Park S. Measurement of the internal adaptation of resin composites using Micro-CT and Its correlation with polymerization shrinkage. Oper Dent. 2014; 39:57–70.
  21. Fronza BM, Rueggeberg FA, Braga RR, Mogilevych B, Soares LES, Martin AA. Monomer conversion, microhardness, internal marginal adaptation, and shrinkage stress of bulk-fill resin composites. Dent Mater. 2015; 31:1542–51.
  22. Tiba A, Zeller GG, Estrich CG, Hong A. A Laboratory evaluation of bulk-fill versus traditional multi-increment– fill resin-based composites. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013; 144:1182–3.
  23. Kim RJ, Kim Y, Choi N, Lee I. Polymerization shrinkage, modulus, and shrinkage stress related to tooth-restoration interfacial debonding in bulk-fill composites. J Dent. 2015; 43:430–9.
  24. Al-Harbi F, Kaisarly D, Bader D, Gezawi ME. Marginal integrity of bulk versus incremental fill class II composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2016; 41:146–56.
  25. Daniel W. Biostatistics. A foundation for analysis in health science 7th ed. New York, Chichester, Brisbane: John Wiley and Sons.Inc.1999.
  26. El-Negoly SA, Ibrahim FM, Ellatif AA. Immunohistochemical expression of tooth pulp dendritic cells as a response to ceramic reinforced glass ionomer restorative materials. E.D.J. 2009; 55: 93-102.
  27. Miwan S. Abdul-Rahman. Evaluation of microleakage in the gingival margin of class II resin composite restoration when using three placement techniques. (An in vitro study). Sulaimani Dent J. 2014; 1:21-28.
  28. Muangmingsuk A, Senawongse P, Yudhasaraprasithi S. Influence of different soft start polymerization techniques on marginal adaptation of class V restorations. Am J Dent 2003; 16:117-9.
  29. Radhika M, Sajjan GS, Kumaraswamy BN, Mittal N. Effect of different placement techniques on marginal microleakage of deep class II cavities restored with two composite resin formulations. J Conserv Dent. 2010; 13: 9- 15.
  30. Kirkpatrick LA, Feeney BC. A simple guide to IBM SPSS statistics for version 20.0. Student ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning; 2013.
  31. Hunt PR. A modified class II cavity preparation for glass ionomer restorative materials. Quintessence Int Dent Dig. 1984; 15: 1011-8.
  32. Wahab FK, Shaini FJ, Morgano SM. The effect of thermocycling on microleakage of several commercially available composite Class V restorations in vitro. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 90:168–74.
  33. Patel MU, Punia SK, Bhat S, Singh G, Bhargava R, Goyal P, et al. An in vitro evaluation of microleakage of posterior teeth restored with amalgam, composite and zirconomer – A Stereomicroscopic Study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015; 9:65– 7.
  34. Kianvash Rad N, Javid B, Panahandeh N, Ghasemi A, Kamali A, Mohammadi G. Microleakage of bulk-fill composites at two different time points. J Dent Sch 2016; 34: 225-34.
  35. Mosharrafian S, Heidari A, Rahbar P. Microleakage of two bulk fill and one conventional composite in class II restorations of primary posterior teeth. J Dent (Tehran). 2017; 14:123–31.
  36. Benetti A, Havndrup-Pedersen C, Honoré D, Pedersen M, Pallesen U. Bulk-Fill Resin Composites: Polymerization Contraction, Depth of Cure, and Gap Formation. Oper Dent. 2015; 40:190–200.
  37. Heintze SD, Monreal D, Peschke A. Marginal quality of class II composite restorations placed in bulk compared to an incremental technique: Evaluation with SEM and stereomicroscope. J Adhes Dent. 2015; 17:147–54.
  38. Van Ende A, De Munck J, Lise DP, Van Meerbeek B. Bulkfill composites: A review of the current literature. J Adhes Dent. 2017; 19:95–109.
  39. Miletic V, Peric D, Milosevic M, Manojlovic D, Mitrovic N. Local deformation fields and marginal integrity of sculptable bulk-fill, low-shrinkage and conventional composites. Dent Mater. 2016; 32:1441–51.
  40. Pashley DH. Clinical consideration of microleakage. J Endodont. 1990; 16:70-7
Alexandria Dental Journal
Volume 44, Issue 1
April 2019
Pages 111-116

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics