Eltoum, N., Bakry, N., Talaat, D., Elshabrawy, S. (2019). MICROLEAKAGE EVALUATION OF BULK-FILL COMPOSITE IN CLASS II RESTORATIONS OF PRIMARY MOLARS. test, 44(1), 111-116. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.57614
Najla A. Eltoum; Niveen S. Bakry; Dalia M. Talaat; Sonia M. Elshabrawy. "MICROLEAKAGE EVALUATION OF BULK-FILL COMPOSITE IN CLASS II RESTORATIONS OF PRIMARY MOLARS". test, 44, 1, 2019, 111-116. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.57614
Eltoum, N., Bakry, N., Talaat, D., Elshabrawy, S. (2019). 'MICROLEAKAGE EVALUATION OF BULK-FILL COMPOSITE IN CLASS II RESTORATIONS OF PRIMARY MOLARS', test, 44(1), pp. 111-116. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.57614
Eltoum, N., Bakry, N., Talaat, D., Elshabrawy, S. MICROLEAKAGE EVALUATION OF BULK-FILL COMPOSITE IN CLASS II RESTORATIONS OF PRIMARY MOLARS. test, 2019; 44(1): 111-116. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.57614

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

Alexandria Dental Journal
Article 19, Volume 44, Issue 1, April 2019, Pages 111-116    PDF (391.59 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.57614
Authors
Najla A. Eltoum* 1; Niveen S. Bakry2; Dalia M. Talaat3; Sonia M. Elshabrawy4
1B.D.S. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Science and Technology, Sudan.
2Professor of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
3Associate Professor of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
4Professor 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
Composite; Bulk-fill; Microleakage; Class II; primary molars
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
Statistics
Article View: 786
PDF Download: 1,941