Microleakage of glass ionomer based restorative materials in primary teeth: An In vitro study

Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Bioactive, Ormocer, and Conventional GIC Restorative Materials in Primary Molars: An In Vitro Study Microleakage of Three Restorative Materials

This in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the microleakage of bioactive, ormocer, and conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorative materials in primary molars. In this study, class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surface of 75 noncarious extracted primary molars. The teeth were then restored as per the groups assigned. Group A, group B, and group C used bioactive restorative materials, ormocer restorative materials, and conventional GIC restorative materials for restorations, respectively. The teeth were then thermocycled and subjected to microleakage analysis via dye penetration. The microleakage scores were compared for differences using the Kruskal–Wallis test. This was followed by multiple pairwise comparisons using the Dunn test. All testing was carried out using a ‘p’ value of <0.05. The percentage of samples showing microleakage score 0 depicting no dye penetration was highest for group A (56%) followed by group C (44%) and group B (12%). Statistical analysis revealed highest microleakage with group B, which was statistically significant ( $p$  < 0.05). Microleakage was evident in all the materials tested. The lowest microleakage was seen with bioactive restorative material.

Comparison of microleakage between different restorative materials to restore marginal gap at crown margin

Background

An occurrence of secondary caries around the indirect restoration margin is reported to remain a leading cause of failures.

Objective

This study aimed to test the interfacial microleakage of conventional glass-ionomer (CGI), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) and Nano-hybrid composite (CR) restorations at a full veneer margin crown.

Methods

Ninety human extracted molar teeth were divided into three groups (n = 30). Each group was subdivided into three subgroups (n = 10) according to the extent of the structural defects; The structural defect in G1 had a depth of 1.5 mm, width and length at 2 mm and 1 mm intrusion within the crown cervical margin. The corresponding structural defect dimension values for G2 were 2, 5, 4 and 2 mm with defects extending onto the root structure. Meanwhile, G3: structural deficiency of 2 mm depth, 3 mm width and 3 mm length and with 1.5 mm extension into the prepared teeth. These structural defects in each subgroup were restored with CGI, RMGI and CR. Artificial carious lesion formation was induced at the cervical finish line with a demineralizing solution. The artificial carious lesions were restored as per the group distribution. Subsequently, teeth samples were prepared and cemented with Nickel-chromium full coverage restorations utilizing glass-ionomer luting cement. Teeth samples were thermocycled, isolated with nail varnish, and immersed in 0.1% methylene blue for 24 h. The teeth samples were sectioned longitudinally, dye penetration was evaluated with a stereomicroscope. The data were analyzed with Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests.

Results

CGI-G1 recorded the highest micro-leakage score at 1.450; while CR-G3 recorded the least score (0.350). At a cementum-restoration interface, CR-G1 (0.850) documented the lowest micro-leakage; RMGI-G3 had a greater value at 1.700.

Conclusions

The hybrid CR could be effectively used to restore the restoration of a marginal gap around crown margins.

Effect of Saliva Contamination on Microleakage of Open Sandwich Restorations

Objectives

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the microleakage of conventional glass-ionomer, resin modified glass-ionomer and glass hybrid ionomer Class II open sandwich restorations with or without saliva contamination.

Materials and methods

Sixty extracted sound human molar teeth were used and 120 class II slot cavities were prepared in mesial and distal surfaces. The gingival margins were located 1 mm below the cementoenamel junction. All specimens were randomly divided in 4 groups (n=15): Group I: High-Viscous Glass Ionomer (Fuji IX GP) Group II: Resin Modified Glass Ionomer (Fuji II LC) Group III: Glass Hybrid Ionomer (Equia-fil Forte), Group IV: Composite Resin (G'aenial Posterior). In open sandwich restoration groups, glass ionomer materials were placed to gingival floor in 1 mm thickness and rest of the cavity was filled with resin composite. After the restorations in mesial surfaces had been performed, distal cavities were restored with the same protocol after saliva contamination. The specimens were thermo-cycled for 10000 cycles at 5⁰C to 55⁰C and immersed in methylene blue dye solution (% 0,5) for 24 hours. Then, they were sectioned vertically through the center of the restorations from mesial to distal surface with a water-cooled diamond saw with 1mm thickness. Subsequently, the dye penetration was evaluated with image analysis software. Data were statistically analyzed (p<0.05).

Results

There was a statistically significant difference between gingival microleakage scores in no contamination groups, between high-viscous glass ionomer, Fuji IX GP and other materials tested (p<0.05). In saliva contaminated groups, there was no statistically significant difference between gingival microleakage scores (p>0.05). Additionally, there was not a statistically significant difference between the no contamination and saliva contaminated groups regardless of dental materials tested (p>0.05).

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this study, in open sandwich restorations, saliva contamination did not show an adverse effect on microleakage irrespective of dental materials tested. Glass hybrid ionomers and resin modified glass ionomers showed lower microleakage scores in gingival margins compared to high-viscous glass ionomer material in no contamination groups.