Evaluation of Gingival Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations with Different Lining Techniques: An In Vitro Study
Aim. To compare the microleakage in class II composite restorations without a liner/with resin modified glass ionomer and flowable composite liner. Method. Forty standardized MO cavities were prepared on human permanent mandibular molars extracted for periodontal reasons and then divided into 4 grou...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2015-01-01
|
| Series: | Scientifica |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/896507 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832548763768455168 |
|---|---|
| author | Vedavathi Bore Gowda B. V. Sreenivasa Murthy Swaroop Hegde Swapna Devarasanahalli Venkataramanaswamy Veena Suresh Pai Rashmi Krishna |
| author_facet | Vedavathi Bore Gowda B. V. Sreenivasa Murthy Swaroop Hegde Swapna Devarasanahalli Venkataramanaswamy Veena Suresh Pai Rashmi Krishna |
| author_sort | Vedavathi Bore Gowda |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Aim. To compare the microleakage in class II composite restorations without a liner/with resin modified glass ionomer and flowable composite liner. Method. Forty standardized MO cavities were prepared on human permanent mandibular molars extracted for periodontal reasons and then divided into 4 groups of ten specimens. The cavity preparations were etched, rinsed, blot dried, and light cured and Adper Single Bond 2 is applied. Group 1 is restored with Filtek P60 packable composite in 2 mm oblique increments. Group 2 is precure group where 1 mm Filtek Z350 flowable liner is applied and light cured for 20 sec. Group 3 is the same as Group 2, but the liner was cocured with packable composite. In Group 4, 1 mm RMGIC, Fuji Lining LC is applied and cured for 20 sec. All the teeth were restored as in Group 1. The specimens were coated with nail varnish leaving 1 mm around the restoration, subjected to thermocycling, basic fuchsin dye penetration, sectioned mesiodistally, and observed under a stereomicroscope. Results. The mean leakage scores of the individual study groups were Group 1 (33.40), Group 2 (7.85), Group 3 (16.40), and Group 4 (24.35). Group 1 without a liner showed maximum leakage. Flowable composite liner precured was the best. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-5e82549d8b754f6092190fda9daae9d6 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2090-908X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2015-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Scientifica |
| spelling | doaj-art-5e82549d8b754f6092190fda9daae9d62025-02-03T06:13:10ZengWileyScientifica2090-908X2015-01-01201510.1155/2015/896507896507Evaluation of Gingival Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations with Different Lining Techniques: An In Vitro StudyVedavathi Bore Gowda0B. V. Sreenivasa Murthy1Swaroop Hegde2Swapna Devarasanahalli Venkataramanaswamy3Veena Suresh Pai4Rashmi Krishna5Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dayananda Sagar College of Dental Sciences, Bangalore 560 078, IndiaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, M.S. Ramaiah Dental College, Karnataka 560054, IndiaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, M.S. Ramaiah Dental College, Karnataka 560054, IndiaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dayananda Sagar College of Dental Sciences, Bangalore 560 078, IndiaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dayananda Sagar College of Dental Sciences, Bangalore 560 078, IndiaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dayananda Sagar College of Dental Sciences, Bangalore 560 078, IndiaAim. To compare the microleakage in class II composite restorations without a liner/with resin modified glass ionomer and flowable composite liner. Method. Forty standardized MO cavities were prepared on human permanent mandibular molars extracted for periodontal reasons and then divided into 4 groups of ten specimens. The cavity preparations were etched, rinsed, blot dried, and light cured and Adper Single Bond 2 is applied. Group 1 is restored with Filtek P60 packable composite in 2 mm oblique increments. Group 2 is precure group where 1 mm Filtek Z350 flowable liner is applied and light cured for 20 sec. Group 3 is the same as Group 2, but the liner was cocured with packable composite. In Group 4, 1 mm RMGIC, Fuji Lining LC is applied and cured for 20 sec. All the teeth were restored as in Group 1. The specimens were coated with nail varnish leaving 1 mm around the restoration, subjected to thermocycling, basic fuchsin dye penetration, sectioned mesiodistally, and observed under a stereomicroscope. Results. The mean leakage scores of the individual study groups were Group 1 (33.40), Group 2 (7.85), Group 3 (16.40), and Group 4 (24.35). Group 1 without a liner showed maximum leakage. Flowable composite liner precured was the best.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/896507 |
| spellingShingle | Vedavathi Bore Gowda B. V. Sreenivasa Murthy Swaroop Hegde Swapna Devarasanahalli Venkataramanaswamy Veena Suresh Pai Rashmi Krishna Evaluation of Gingival Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations with Different Lining Techniques: An In Vitro Study Scientifica |
| title | Evaluation of Gingival Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations with Different Lining Techniques: An In Vitro Study |
| title_full | Evaluation of Gingival Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations with Different Lining Techniques: An In Vitro Study |
| title_fullStr | Evaluation of Gingival Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations with Different Lining Techniques: An In Vitro Study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of Gingival Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations with Different Lining Techniques: An In Vitro Study |
| title_short | Evaluation of Gingival Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations with Different Lining Techniques: An In Vitro Study |
| title_sort | evaluation of gingival microleakage in class ii composite restorations with different lining techniques an in vitro study |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/896507 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT vedavathiboregowda evaluationofgingivalmicroleakageinclassiicompositerestorationswithdifferentliningtechniquesaninvitrostudy AT bvsreenivasamurthy evaluationofgingivalmicroleakageinclassiicompositerestorationswithdifferentliningtechniquesaninvitrostudy AT swaroophegde evaluationofgingivalmicroleakageinclassiicompositerestorationswithdifferentliningtechniquesaninvitrostudy AT swapnadevarasanahallivenkataramanaswamy evaluationofgingivalmicroleakageinclassiicompositerestorationswithdifferentliningtechniquesaninvitrostudy AT veenasureshpai evaluationofgingivalmicroleakageinclassiicompositerestorationswithdifferentliningtechniquesaninvitrostudy AT rashmikrishna evaluationofgingivalmicroleakageinclassiicompositerestorationswithdifferentliningtechniquesaninvitrostudy |