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
The effect of marginal microleakge according to thickness of flowable resin


Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

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

The effect of marginal microleakge according to thickness of flowable resin

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2005;30(5):363-371
Publication date (electronic) : 2005 September 30
doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2005.30.5.363
Gi-Gang Song, Young-Gon Cho
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 06; Revised 2005 February 18; Accepted 2005 March 05.

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of thickness of flowable resin lining on marginal leakage in class II composite restorations. 80 experimental teeth were prepared with class II preparations with enamel margin or dentin margin. Each group was devided into four groups according to flowable resin lining thickness ; Control group - no flowable resin lining, Group 1 - 0.5 mm flowable resin lining, Group 2 - 1 mm flowable resin lining, Group 3 - 2 mm flowable resin lining. The cavities were restored using Scotchbond Multi-Purpose adhesive system, Filtek Flow and Filtek Z 250 composite resin.

Following one day storage in distilled water, the restored teeth were thermocycled for 500 cycles and immersed in 2% methylene blue for 24 hours.

The results of this study were as follows:

1. Ranking of mean microleakage scores at the enamel margins was Group 1 < Control = Group 2 < Group 3. The microleakage of Group 3 was significantly higher than that of Control, Group 1 and Group 2 (p < 0.05).

2. Ranking of mean microleakage scores at the dentin margins was Group 1 < Group 2 < Control < Group 3. The microleakage of Group 3 was significantly higher than that of Control, Group 1 (p < 0.05).

3. Compared with microleakage between the enamel and dentin margins, enamel margin group were significantly lower than dentin margin group.

Keywords: Flowable resin; Lining; Thickness; Class II cavity; Gingival margin; Microleakage

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. Malmstrom H, Schlueter M, Roach T, Moss ME. Effect of thickness of flowable resins on marginal leakage in class II composite restorations. Oper Dent 2002. 27373–380.
3. Davidson CL, de Gee AJ. Relaxation of polymerization contraction stresses by flow in dental composites. J Dent Res 1984. 63(2)146–148.
4. Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swft EJ, Stamatiades P, Wilkerson M. A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc 1998. 129567–577.
5. Beznos C. Microleakage at the cervical margin of composite class II cavities with different restorative techniques. Oper Dent 2001. 2660–69.
6. Estafan AM, Denise E. Microleakage study of flowable composite resin systems. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2000. 21(9)705–708.
7. Lutz F, Krejei I, Schupbach F. Adhesive systems for tooth colored restorations: A review. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 1993. 103537–549.
8. Krejci I, Lutz F, Krejci D. The influence of different base materials on marginal adaptation and wear of conventional class II composite resin restorations. Quintessence Int 1988. 19191–198.
9. Payne JH 4th. The marginal seal of class II restorations: Flowable composite resin compared to injectable glass ionomer. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1999. 23(2)123–130.
10. Bayne SC, Jeffrey YT, Edward JS, Perry S, Michelle W. A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc 1998. 129567–577.
11. Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E. Composite restorations: influence of flowable and self-curing resin composite lining on microleakage in vitro. Oper Dent 2002. 27569–575.
12. Yazici AR, Baseren M, Dayangac B. The effect of flowable composite resin on microleakage in class V cavities. Oper Dent 2003. 2842–46.
13. Chuang SF, Jin YT, Lin TS, Chang CH, Godoy FG. Effect of lining materials on microleakage and internal voids of class II resin-based composite restorations. Am J Dent 2003. 1684–90.
14. Chuang SF, Liu JK, Chao CC, Liao FP, Chen YHM. Effect of flowable composite lining and operator experience on micoleakage and internal voids in class II composite restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2001. 85177–183.
15. Feilzer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. J Dent Res 1987. 66(11)1636–1639.
16. Phillips RW, Avery DR. Observation on a composite resin for class II restoration: Two-year report. J Prosthet Dent 1972. 28164–169.
17. Gordon M, Plasschaert AJM, Saiku JM, Pelzner RB. Microleakage of posterior composite resin materials and an experimental urethane restorative material, tested in vitro above and below the cementoenamel junction. Quintessence Int 1986. 17(1)11–15.
18. Alonso RC, Mario CS, Lourenco CS, Simonides C. Effect of resin liners on microleakage of class V dental composite restorations. J Appl Oral Sci 2004. 12(1)56–61.
19. Kwon HC, Kim JU, No BD, Moon JH, Park SJ, Park SH, Park JW, Son HH, Sin DH, Eom JM, Yun TC, Lee GW, Lee SJ, Jeong IY, Jo GM, Jo BH, Jo YG, Choe GG, Heo B, Hwang IN. Conservative dentistry. 2001. Seoul: Sinheung International; 99–104.
20. Unterbrink GL, Liebenberg WH. Flowable resin composites as "filled adhesives": Literature review and clinical recommendations. Quintessence Int 1999. 30249–257.
21. Civelek M, Erosy M, L'Hotelier E, Soyman M, Say EC. Polymerization shrinkage and microleakage in class II cavities of various resin composites. Oper Dent 2003. 28(5)635–641.
22. Watts and Cash. The method for determining volumetric shrinkage. Meas Sci Technol 1991. 2788–794.
23. Amaral CM, Hara AT. Microleakage of hydrophilic adhesive systems in class V composite restorations. Am J Dent 2001. 14(1)31–33.
24. Gordan VV, Vargas MA, Cobb DS, Denehy GE. Evaluation of acidic primers in microleakage of class 5 composite resin restorations. Oper Dent 1998. 23244–249.
25. Chuang SF, Jin YT, Liu JK, Chang CH, Shieh DB. Influence of flowable composite lining thickness on class II composite restorations. Oper Dent 2004. 29301–308.
26. Tung FF, Hsieh WW, Estafan D. In vitro microleakage study of a condensable and flowable composite resin. Gen Dent 2000. 48(6)711–715.
27. Peris AR, Duarte S, Andrade MF. Evaluation of marginal microleakage in class II cavities: Effect of microhybrid, flowable, and compactable resins. Quintessence Int 2003. 3493–98.
28. Fayyad MA, Shortall AC. Microleakage of dentin-bonded posterior composite restoration. J Dent 1987. 15(2)67–72.

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.

Figure 1

Figure 1

Numbers of leakage scores of each group at enamel margins.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Numbers of leakage scores of each group at dentin margins.

Table 1

Materials used in this study

Table 1

HEMA = 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, Bis-GMA = bisphenol-glysidyl-methacrylate, TEGDMA = triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, UDMA = urethane dimethacrylate, Bis-EMA = bisphenol-ethylmetacrylate

Table 2

Group classification by thickness of flowable resin

Table 2

Table 3

Distribution of microleakage scores and mean rank at enamel margins

Table 3

Table 4

Distribution of microleakage scores and mean rank at dentin margins

Table 4

Table 5

Statistical analysis of microleakage between each group at enamel margin by Mann-Whitney test

Table 5

-: no-significant differences (p < 0.05).

*: significant differences (p < 0.05).

Table 6

Statistical analysis of microleakage between each group at dentin margin by Mann-Whitney test

Table 6

-: no-significant differences (p < 0.05).

*: significant differences (p < 0.05).

Table 7

Statistical analysis on the microleakage between enamel and dentin margin in each group by Wilcoxon signed rank sum test

Table 7

*: significant differences (p < 0.05).

-: no-significant differences (p < 0.05).