Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2018; 12(03): 369-374
DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_28_18
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Micro-computed tomography evaluation of microleakage of Class II composite restorations: An in vitro study

Angelo Zavattini
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
,
Manuele Mancini
2   Department of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome RM, Italy
,
James Higginson
3   Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Institute of Head and Neck Studies and Education, School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
,
Federico Foschi
4   Department of Conservative Dentistry, King’s College London Dental Institute, Guy’s Hospital, London SE1 9RT, UK
,
Guido Pasquantonio
2   Department of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome RM, Italy
,
Francesco Mangani
2   Department of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome RM, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
16 September 2019 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate the microleakage attained with three resin-based material used to restore deep Class II cavities. A null hypothesis was chosen: there is no difference in microleakage among the tested materials. Materials and Methods: A total of 30 Class II cavities were prepared in freshly extracted molars with the proximal mesial and distal margins located, respectively, 1.5 mm apically and 1.5 mm coronally to the cementum-enamel junction. Restorations were completed using a three-step enamel-dentin adhesive system “Etch and Rinse,” margins were relocated using a micro-hybrid, preheated, or flowable composite and restorations were then completed using a conventional composite. All samples were coated with nail varnish with the exception of an area along the margins and apex was sealed using epoxide cement and then thermocycled (30-s dwell time, 5°C/55°C, 1000 cycles). A 50% ammoniac AgNO3 solution was used as tracer according to Tay's protocol. The microleakage analysis was performed using a microtomography system Sky-scan 1072 (SKYSCAN, Kartuizersweg 3B 2550, Konitch, Belgium). Results: The mean microleakage of all the tested materials showed greater leakage in the cementum margins; flowable composite exhibit greater leakage among the groups. Significant differences (P < 5%) within groups in both enamel and dentin margins were present. None of the tested materials eliminated marginal microleakage. Preheated composite showed significantly lesser microleakage. Conclusion: Tested materials showed statistical differences in microleakage; thus, the null hypothesis has been rejected. Within the limitations of the present experimental procedure, it can be concluded that flowable resin composite should be avoided at the dentin/cementum margin.

Key words:

Adhesion - Class II - deep margin relocation - direct restoration - micro-computed tomography CT - microleakage
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Magne P, Dietschi D, Holz J. Esthetic restorations for posterior teeth: Practical and clinical considerations. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1996; 16: 104-19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Deliperi S. Functional and aesthetic guidelines for stress-reduced direct posterior composite restorations. Oper Dent 2012; 37: 425-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Liebenberg WH. Assuring restorative integrity in extensive posterior resin composite restorations: Pushing the envelope. Quintessence Int 2000; 31: 153-64
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Deliperi S, Bardwell DN. Clinical evaluation of direct cuspal coverage with posterior composite resin restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2006; 18: 256-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kenyon BJ, Frederickson D, Hagge MS. Gingival seal of deep class II direct and indirect composite restorations. Am J Dent 2007; 20: 3-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rocca GT, Gregor L, Sandoval MJ, Krejci I, Dietschi D. In vitro evaluation of marginal and internal adaptation after occlusal stressing of indirect class II composite restorations with different resinous bases and interface treatments. “Post-fatigue adaptation of indirect composite restorations”. Clin Oral Investig 2012; 16: 1385-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kidd EA. Microleakage: A review. J Dent 1976; 4: 199-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Araujo Fde O, Vieira LC, Monteiro Junior S. Influence of resin composite shade and location of the gingival margin on the microleakage of posterior restorations. Oper Dent 2006; 31: 556-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Cardoso MV, de Almeida Neves A, Mine A, Coutinho E, Van Landuyt K, De Munck J. et al Current aspects on bonding effectiveness and stability in adhesive dentistry. Aust Dent J 2011; 56 (Suppl. 01) 31-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Rodrigues Junior SA, Pin LF, Machado G, Della Bona A, Demarco FF. Influence of different restorative techniques on marginal seal of class II composite restorations. J Appl Oral Sci 2010; 18: 37-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Fabianelli A, Pollington S, Davidson C, Cagidiaco MC, Goracci C. Scientific relevance of micro – Leakage studies. Mod Dent Med 2007; 9: 64-74
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Karagenç B, Gençoglu N, Ersoy M, Cansever G, Külekçi G. A comparison of four different microleakage tests for assessment of leakage of root canal fillings. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006; 102: 110-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Leevailoj C, Cochran MA, Matis BA, Moore BK, Platt JA. Microleakage of posterior packable resin composites with and without flowable liners. Oper Dent 2001; 26: 302-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sadeghi M, Lynch CD. The effect of flowable materials on the microleakage of class II composite restorations that extend apical to the cemento-enamel junction. Oper Dent 2009; 34: 306-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Tay FR, Pashley DH, Garcìa-Godoy F, Yiu CK. Single-step, self-etch adhesives behave as permeable membranes after polymerization. Part II. silver tracer penetration evidence. Am J Dent 2004; 17: 315-22
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hamouda I, Abd Elkader H, Badawi MF. Microleakage of nanofilled composite resin restorative material. J Biomater Nanobiotechnol 2011; 2: 329-34
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Relhan N, Ponnappa KC, Relhan A, Jain A, Gupta P. An in-vitro comparison of micro leakage between two posterior composites restored with different layering techniques using two different LED modes. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9: ZC78-81
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ferrari M, Davidson CL. Sealing performance of Scotchbond multi-purpose-Z100 in class II restorations. Am J Dent 1996; 9: 145-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Dietschi D, Spreafico R. Current clinical concepts for adhesive cementation of tooth-colored posterior restorations. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1998; 10: 47-54
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Magne P. Deep margin elevation technique: A paradigm shift. Am J Esthet Dent 2012; 2: 86-96
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Fabianelli A, Sgarra A, Goracci C, Cantoro A, Pollington S, Ferrari M. et al Microleakage in class II restorations: Open vs. closed centripetal build-up technique. Oper Dent 2010; 35: 308-13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Sensi LG, Marson FC, Monteiro Jr. S, Baratieri LN, Caldeira de Andrada MA. Flowable composites as “filled adhesives”: A microleakage study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2004; 5: 32-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Wagner WC, Aksu MN, Neme AM, Linger JB, Pink FE, Walker S. et al Effect of pre-heating resin composite on restoration microleakage. Oper Dent 2008; 33: 72-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Castelnuovo J, Tjan AH, Liu P. Microleakage of multi-step and simplified-step bonding systems. Am J Dent 1996; 9: 245-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Neves AA, Jaecques S, Van Ende A, Cardoso MV, Coutinho E, Lührs AK. et al 3D-microleakage assessment of adhesive interfaces: Exploratory findings by μCT. Dent Mater 2014; 30: 799-807
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar