Evaluation of microleakage in posterior nanocomposite restorations with adhesive liners

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims and Objectives: To compare the microleakage in class II nanocomposite restorations without liner, with resin-modified glass ionomer liner and flowable composite liner. Materials and Methods: Thirty-six sound premolars extracted for orthodontic reasons were selected and randomly assigned into three groups of 12 teeth each (Group I, II and III). Class II cavities of specified dimensions were prepared with margins located in the enamel. Cavities in group I were lined with resin modified glass ionomer (GC Fuji II LC-Improved), group II were lined with flowable composite (Filtex Z350 Flowable Restorative) and no liner was placed for cavities in group III. All the teeth were restored with nanocomposite (Z 350 Universal Restorative). The teeth were immersed in 0.5% methylene blue dye, sectioned mesiodistally and observed under stereomicroscope. Results: Group III showed maximum leakage compared to group I and II which was statistically significant. Microleakage was lesser in group lined with resin-modified glass ionomer as compared to flowable composite group but not statistically significant. Conclusions: Placement of liner beneath nanocomposite restoration results in significant reduction in microleakage. Both resin-modified and flowable composite liners under nanocomposite restorations result in comparable reduction of microleakage.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)178-181
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Conservative Dentistry
Volume14
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-04-2011

Fingerprint

Nanocomposites
Adhesives
Tooth
Methylene Blue
Bicuspid
Dental Enamel
Orthodontics
Coloring Agents
flowable hybrid composite
glass ionomer

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

@article{8e800c7c55094cf4aa598c8c1115f9db,
title = "Evaluation of microleakage in posterior nanocomposite restorations with adhesive liners",
abstract = "Aims and Objectives: To compare the microleakage in class II nanocomposite restorations without liner, with resin-modified glass ionomer liner and flowable composite liner. Materials and Methods: Thirty-six sound premolars extracted for orthodontic reasons were selected and randomly assigned into three groups of 12 teeth each (Group I, II and III). Class II cavities of specified dimensions were prepared with margins located in the enamel. Cavities in group I were lined with resin modified glass ionomer (GC Fuji II LC-Improved), group II were lined with flowable composite (Filtex Z350 Flowable Restorative) and no liner was placed for cavities in group III. All the teeth were restored with nanocomposite (Z 350 Universal Restorative). The teeth were immersed in 0.5{\%} methylene blue dye, sectioned mesiodistally and observed under stereomicroscope. Results: Group III showed maximum leakage compared to group I and II which was statistically significant. Microleakage was lesser in group lined with resin-modified glass ionomer as compared to flowable composite group but not statistically significant. Conclusions: Placement of liner beneath nanocomposite restoration results in significant reduction in microleakage. Both resin-modified and flowable composite liners under nanocomposite restorations result in comparable reduction of microleakage.",
author = "B. Simi and Suprabha, {B. S.}",
year = "2011",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4103/0972-0707.82631",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "178--181",
journal = "Journal of Conservative Dentistry",
issn = "0972-0707",
publisher = "Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd",
number = "2",

}

Evaluation of microleakage in posterior nanocomposite restorations with adhesive liners. / Simi, B.; Suprabha, B. S.

In: Journal of Conservative Dentistry, Vol. 14, No. 2, 01.04.2011, p. 178-181.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of microleakage in posterior nanocomposite restorations with adhesive liners

AU - Simi, B.

AU - Suprabha, B. S.

PY - 2011/4/1

Y1 - 2011/4/1

N2 - Aims and Objectives: To compare the microleakage in class II nanocomposite restorations without liner, with resin-modified glass ionomer liner and flowable composite liner. Materials and Methods: Thirty-six sound premolars extracted for orthodontic reasons were selected and randomly assigned into three groups of 12 teeth each (Group I, II and III). Class II cavities of specified dimensions were prepared with margins located in the enamel. Cavities in group I were lined with resin modified glass ionomer (GC Fuji II LC-Improved), group II were lined with flowable composite (Filtex Z350 Flowable Restorative) and no liner was placed for cavities in group III. All the teeth were restored with nanocomposite (Z 350 Universal Restorative). The teeth were immersed in 0.5% methylene blue dye, sectioned mesiodistally and observed under stereomicroscope. Results: Group III showed maximum leakage compared to group I and II which was statistically significant. Microleakage was lesser in group lined with resin-modified glass ionomer as compared to flowable composite group but not statistically significant. Conclusions: Placement of liner beneath nanocomposite restoration results in significant reduction in microleakage. Both resin-modified and flowable composite liners under nanocomposite restorations result in comparable reduction of microleakage.

AB - Aims and Objectives: To compare the microleakage in class II nanocomposite restorations without liner, with resin-modified glass ionomer liner and flowable composite liner. Materials and Methods: Thirty-six sound premolars extracted for orthodontic reasons were selected and randomly assigned into three groups of 12 teeth each (Group I, II and III). Class II cavities of specified dimensions were prepared with margins located in the enamel. Cavities in group I were lined with resin modified glass ionomer (GC Fuji II LC-Improved), group II were lined with flowable composite (Filtex Z350 Flowable Restorative) and no liner was placed for cavities in group III. All the teeth were restored with nanocomposite (Z 350 Universal Restorative). The teeth were immersed in 0.5% methylene blue dye, sectioned mesiodistally and observed under stereomicroscope. Results: Group III showed maximum leakage compared to group I and II which was statistically significant. Microleakage was lesser in group lined with resin-modified glass ionomer as compared to flowable composite group but not statistically significant. Conclusions: Placement of liner beneath nanocomposite restoration results in significant reduction in microleakage. Both resin-modified and flowable composite liners under nanocomposite restorations result in comparable reduction of microleakage.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79960650487&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79960650487&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4103/0972-0707.82631

DO - 10.4103/0972-0707.82631

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 178

EP - 181

JO - Journal of Conservative Dentistry

JF - Journal of Conservative Dentistry

SN - 0972-0707

IS - 2

ER -