Effect of cavity varnish, amalgam liner or dentin bonding agents on the marginal leakage of amalgam restorations

In Vitro Performance of Class I and II Composite Restorations: A Literature review on Nondestructive Laboratory Trials—Part II

A literature review was conducted on adhesive Class I and II restorations and nondestructive in vitro tests using the PubMed/Medline database for the 1995-2010 period. The first part of this review has presented and critically appraised selected literature dealing with the quality and in vitro behavior of adhesive Class II restorations using photoelasticity, finite element analysis, and microleakage study protocols. This second part reviews additional parameters, which are deformation and fracture resistance to cyclic loading, shrinkage stress and tooth deformation following restoration placement, bond strength (microtensile, tensile, and shear tests), and marginal and internal adaptation. In addition, a “relevance score” has been proposed that aims to classify the different study protocols according, firstly, to the resulting quality, quantity, and consistency of the evidence and then, secondly, to their potential clinical relevance, as estimated by their ability to simulate oral and biomechanical strains. The highest clinical relevance was attributed to marginal and internal adaptation studies, following cyclic loading in a moist environement. However, a combination of in vitro protocols will have an even greater predictive potential and has to be considered as a crucial preclinical research approach with which to investigate the numerous restorative configurations that cannot be efficiently and rapidly tested in vivo.

In Vivo and In Vitro Evaluations of Microleakage Around Class I Amalgam and Composite Restorations

The lining of amalgam restorations showed no significant effect on microleakage around restoration margins. In vivo and in vitro evaluations confirmed that microleakage was higher in resin composite restorations than in amalgam.

Influence of different restorative techniques on marginal seal of class II composite restorations

Objective

To evaluate the gingival marginal seal in class II composite restorations using different restorative techniques.

Material and Methods

Class II box cavities were prepared in both proximal faces of 32 sound human third molars with gingival margins located in either enamel or dentin/cementum. Restorations were performed as follows: G1 (control): composite, conventional light curing technique; G2: composite, soft-start technique; G3: amalgam/composite association (amalcomp); and G4: resin-modified glass ionomer cement/ composite, open sandwich technique. The restored specimens were thermocycled. Epoxy resin replicas were made and coated for scanning electron microscopy examination. For microleakage evaluation, teeth were coated with nail polish and immersed in dye solution. Teeth were cut in 3 slices and dye penetration was recorded (mm), digitized and analyzed with Image Tool software. Microleakage data were analyzed statistically by non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests.

Results

Leakage in enamel was lower than in dentin (p<0.001). G2 exhibited the lowest leakage values (p<0.05) in enamel margins, with no differences between the other groups. In dentin margins, groups G1 and G2 had similar behavior and both showed less leakage (p<0.05) than groups G3 and G4. SEM micrographs revealed different marginal adaptation patterns for the different techniques and for the different substrates.

Conclusion

The soft-start technique showed no leakage in enamel margins and produced similar values to those of the conventional (control) technique for dentin margins.