Warning: mkdir(): Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 81

Warning: fopen(upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-12.txt): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 83

Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 84
Effect of biscover on the marginal microleakage of composite resin restoration


Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.

Effect of biscover on the marginal microleakage of composite resin restoration

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2005;30(5):355-362
Publication date (electronic) : 2005 September 30
doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2005.30.5.355
Young-Gon Cho, Hee-Young Choi
Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Chosun University, Korea.
Corresponding author: Young-Gon Cho. Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Chosun University, 421 Seosuk-dong, Dong-gu, Gwangju, Korea 501-825. Tel: 82-62-220-3840, 3845, Fax: 82-62-232-9064, ygcho@mail.chosun.ac.kr
Received 2005 January 03; Revised 2005 February 18; Accepted 2005 March 05.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the effect on marginal leakage of a resin surface sealant (Biscover) applied before or after polymerization of composite resin to unsealed composite restorations. Thirty Class V cavities with the occlusal margin in enamel and cervical margin in dentin or cementum were prepared on the buccal surfaces of sound extracted molars and restored with a microfilled light-cured composite resin (Micronew). Restorations were randomly assigned into one of three equal groups (n = 10): a control group - no surface sealing, group 1 - applied Biscover after polymerization of the composite resin, and group 2 - applied Biscover before polymerization of the composite resin. Specimens were thermocycled, immersed in a 2% methylene blue solution for 4 hours, sectioned longitudinally, and analyzed for leakage at the occlusal and gingival margins. The results of this study were as follows;

1. In sealed group, group 2 showed higher microleakage than group 1 at both occlusal and gingival margins, but there was no significant difference between two groups (p > 0.05).

2. Unsealed control group showed a little higher microleakage than sealed group at occlusal margins, and a little higher or similar microleakage than sealed group at gingival margins (p > 0.05).

3. Control group and group 2 showed significantly less microleakage at the occlusal margins, but group 1 showed no significantly difference between microleakage at the occlusal and gingival margins.

Keywords: Biscover; Resin surface sealant; Microleakage; Class V cavity; Occlusal margin or gingival margin

References

1. Munro GA, Hilton TJ, Hermesch CB. In vitro microleakage of etched and rebonded class 5 composite resin restorations. Oper Dent 1996. 21203–208.
2. Gladys S, Van Meerbeek B, Lamberechts P, Vanherle G. Microleakage of adhesive restorative materials. Am J Dent 2001. 14(3)170–176.
3. Tjan AH, Tan DE. Microleakage at gingival margins of class V composite resin restorations rebonded with various low-viscosity resin systems. Quintessence Int 1991. 22(7)565–573.
4. Erhardt MCG, Magalhaes CS, Serra MC. The effect of rebonding on microleakage of class V aesthetic restorations. Oper Dent 2002. 27396–402.
5. May KN Jr, Swift EJ Jr, Wilder AD, Futrell SC. Effect of a surface sealant on microleakage of Class V restorations. Am J Dent 1996. 9(3)133–136.
6. Hansen EK. Effect of cavity depth and application technique on marginal adaptation of resin in dentin cavities. J Dent Res 1986. 651319–1321.
7. Sidhu SK, Henderson LJ. In vitro marginal leakage of cervical composite restorations lined with a light-cured glass ionomer. Oper Dent 1992. 177–12.
8. Santini A. Microleakage of resin-based composite restorations using different solvent-based bonding agents and methods of drying acid-etched dentin. Am J Dent 1999. 12194–200.
9. Jayasooriya PR, Pereira PNR, Nikaido T, Burrow MF, Tagami J. The effect of a "resin coatingon" the interfacial adaptation of composite inlays. Oper Dent 2003. 2828–35.
10. Kubo S, Yokota H, Yokota H, Hayashi Y. Effect of low-viscosity resin-based composite on the microleakage of cervical restorations. Am J Dent 2003. 16244–248.
11. Unterbrink GL, Muessner R. Influence of light intensity on two restorative systems. J Dent 1995. 23183–189.
12. Crim GA. Influence of bonding agents and composites on microleakge. J Prosthet Dent 1989. 61(5)571–574.
13. Pameijer CH, Wendt SL. Microleakage of "surface-sealing" materials. Am J Dent 1995. 8(1)43–46.
14. Irie M, Tjandrawinata R, Suzuki K. Effect of delayed polishing periods on interfacial gap formation of class V restorations. Oper Dent 2003. 28(5)552–559.
15. Akyuz S, Mentes A, Oktay C. The effect of a sealant on the microleakage of composite resin restorations : an in vivo study. J Marmara Univ Dent Fac 1992. 1(3)211–214.
16. Ramos RP, Chinelatti MA, Chimello DT, Dibb RGP. Assessing microleakage in resin composite restorations rebonded with a surface sealant and three low-viscosity resin systems. Quintessence Int 2002. 33450–456.
17. Reid JS, Saunders WP, Chen YY. The effect of bonding agent and fissure sealant on microleakage of composite resin restorations. Quintessence Int 1991. 22295–298.
18. Bertrand MF, Leforestier E, Muller M, Lupi-Pegurier L, Bolla M. Effect of surface penetrating sealant on surface texture and microhardness of composite resins. J Biomed Mater Res 2000. 53(6)658–663.
19. Doray PG, Eldiwany MS, Powers JM. Effect of resin surface sealers on improvement of stain resistance for a composite provisional material. J Esthet Restor Dent 2003. 15244–250.
20. Shinkai K, Suzuki S, Leinfelder KF, Katoh Y. Effect of surface-penetrating sealant on resistance of luting agents. Quintessence Int 1994. 25767–771.
21. Dickinson GL, Leinfelder KF. Assessing the long-term effect of a surface penetrating sealant. J Am Dent Assoc 1993. 124(7)68–72.
22. Estafan D, Dussetschleger FL, Miuo LE, Kondamani J. Class V lesions restored with flowable composite and added surface sealing resin. Gen Dent 2000. 4878–80.
23. Suh BI. A new resin technology: a glaze/composite sealant that cures without forming an oxygen-inhibited layer. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2003. 24(8)27–29.
24. Barghi N, Alexander C. A new surface sealant for polishing composit resin restorations. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2003. 24(8)30–33.
25. Ramos RP, Chimello DT, Chinelatti MA, Dibb RGP, Mondelli J. Effect of three surface sealants on marginal sealing of class V composit resin restorations. Oper Dent 2000. 25448–453.
26. Crim GA. Effect of composite resin on the microleakge of Scotchbond 2 Gluma. Am J Dent 1988. 1215–216.
27. Davidson CL, de Gee AL. Relaxation of polymerization contraction stresses by flow in dental composites. J Dent Res 1984. 63146–148.
28. Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Marginal integrity to bond strength and strain capacity of composite resin restorative systems. J Prosthet Dent 1990. 64658–664.

Article information Continued

Copyright © 2005 Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry
(open-access) :

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Table 1

Group classification by application methods of Biscover

Table 1

Table 2

Distribution of microleakage scores and mean rank at occlusal margins

Table 2

Table 3

Distribution of microleakage scores and mean rank at gingival margins

Table 3

Table 4

Statistical analysis of microleakage at occlusal and gingival margins among groups by Mann-Whitney test

Table 4

NS: No significant differences (p > 0.05)

Table 5

Statistical analysis between microleakage of occlusal and gingival margins in each group by Wilcoxon signed ranked test

Table 5

S: Microleakage of gingival margins was significant higher than that of occlusal margins (p < 0.05)

NS: No significant differences (p > 0.05)