Microleakage Under Orthodontic Brackets Bonded Using a Conventional Adhesive System, Nanocomposites, and Nanoionomers: A Comparative Study

Background Microleakage under orthodontic brackets has a role in early bracket debonding and white spot lesions due to the ingress of oral fluids in the bracket-adhesive-tooth interface. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the microleakage under orthodontic brackets bonded with the conventional adhesive system, nanocomposites, and nanoionomers. Materials and methods Forty-five human premolars were extracted for therapeutic reasons and collected for this study. Teeth were randomly assigned to three groups: Group A: conventional etching with conventional adhesive, Group B: conventional etching with nanocomposite, and Group C: conventional etching with nanoionomer. Stainless steel premolar brackets were used for bonding. After thermocycling, the extracted teeth were submerged in a 0.5% solution of basic fuchsine for 24 hours. They were then cut longitudinally. A stereomicroscope was used to assess microleakage along the occlusal and gingival interfaces. Results To compare the microleakage scores between gingival and occlusal aspects within each group, the student's t-test was performed. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the post-hoc Tukey test were applied to the data for intergroup comparison of microleakage scores. On comparing the microleakage scores, the gingival side of interfaces depicted higher microleakage than the occlusal side gingival side across all groups, demonstrating statistically significant results (P <0.05).On intergroup comparison, the occlusal bracket adhesive interface and gingival tooth adhesive interface revealed significantly higher microleakage values for Group B followed by Group C with Group A the least. However, there was no significant difference in the microleakage scores between Group B and Group C on intergroup comparison of mean microleakage scores (P <0.05). Conclusion The gingival side showed higher microleakage scores than the occlusal side. Nanoionomers showed microleakage values higher than the Transbond XT but lower than nanocomposites. Based on the results of the present study, in terms of microleakage, Transbond XT demonstrated lower microleakage when compared to nanoionomers and nanocomposites.

Commercially Available Fluoride-Releasing Restorative Materials: A Review and a Proposal for Classification

Resin composite and glass ionomer cement (GIC) are the most commonly used dental materials to perform direct restorations. Both have specific characteristics that explain their popularity and their limits. More than 20 years ago, the first attempt (followed by others) to combine the advantages of these two families was performed with compomers, but it was not very successful. Recently, new formulations (also called 'smart materials') with claimed ion release properties have been proposed under different family names, but there are few studies on them and explanations of their chemistries. This comprehensive review aims to gather the compositions; the setting reactions; the mechanical, self-adhesive, and potential bulk-fill properties; and the ion release abilities of the large existing families of fluoride-releasing restorative materials and the new restorative materials to precisely describe their characteristics, their eventual bioactivities, and classify them for an improved understanding of these materials. Based on this work, the whole GIC family, including resin-modified and highly viscous formulations, was found to be bioactive. Cention N (Ivoclar Vivadent, AG, Schaan, Lietschentein) is the first commercially available bioactive resin composite.

Effect of acid etching on bond strength of nanoionomer as an orthodontic bonding adhesive

AIMS

A new Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement known as nanoionomer containing nanofillers of fluoroaluminosilicate glass and nanofiller 'clusters' has been introduced. An in-vitro study aimed at evaluating shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) of nanoionomer under etching/unetched condition for use as an orthodontic bonding agent.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 75 extracted premolars were used, which were divided into three equal groups of 25 each: 1-Conventional adhesive (Enlight Light Cure, SDS, Ormco, CA, USA) was used after and etching with 37% phosphoric acid for 30 s, followed by Ortho Solo application 2-nanoionomer (Ketac(™) N100, 3M, ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) was used after etching with 37% phosphoric acid for 30 s 3-nanoionomer was used without etching. The SBS testing was performed using a digital universal testing machine (UTM-G-410B, Shanta Engineering). Evaluation of ARI was done using scanning electron microscopy. The SBS were compared using ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey test for intergroup comparisons and ARI scores were compared with Chi-square test.

RESULTS

ANOVA (SBS, F = 104.75) and Chi-square (ARI, Chi-square = 30.71) tests revealed significant differences between groups (P < 0.01). The mean (SD) SBS achieved with conventional light cure adhesive was significantly higher (P < 0.05) (10.59 ± 2.03 Mpa, 95% CI, 9.74-11.41) than the nanoionomer groups (unetched 4.13 ± 0.88 Mpa, 95% CI, 3.79-4.47 and etched 9.32 ± 1.87 Mpa, 95% CI, 8.58-10.06). However, nanoionomer with etching, registered SBS in the clinically acceptable range of 5.9-7.8 MPa, as suggested by Reynolds (1975). The nanoionomer groups gave significantly lower ARI values than the conventional adhesive group.

CONCLUSION

Based on this in-vitro study, nanoionomer with etching can be successfully used as an orthodontic bonding agent leaving less adhesive remnant on enamel surface, making cleaning easier. However, in-vivo studies are needed to confirm the validity of present findings.

Comparative evaluation of microleakage of nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer: An in vitro study

Objective:

This in vitro study evaluated the microleakage of a nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer and a high viscosity glass-ionomer restorations in class V cavities.

Materials and Methods:

Thirty-two class V cavities prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 16 sound, third molar teeth were randomly assigned into two groups and restored by one of the glass ionomer material; Group A: A high viscosity (Ketac Molar, 3M ESPE) Group B: A nano-filled resin-modified (Ketac N100, 3M ESPE) glass ionomer. One clinician prepared all the cavities. The materials were used according to the manufacturers’ recommendations. The restored teeth were then stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h, thermocycled at 5-55°C for 1000 cycles. The specimens were immersed in aqueous solution of Indian ink dye for 48 h at room temperature. They were embedded in resin polyester and sectioned longitudinally in a buccolingual direction. Microleakage was assessed according to the depth of dye penetration along the restoration. The extent of dye penetration at the occlusal and gingival margins was assessed using a stereo microscope. Randomly selected samples from each group were prepared for scanning electron microscope evaluation. The data were statistically analyzed with Friedman and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests.

Results:

There were statistically significant differences between the microleakage scores of the two groups for both occlusal and gingival scores (P = 0.001). Occlusal and gingival scores for high viscosity glass ionomer (P = 0.024) and nanoionomer (P = 0.021) using Wilcoxon signed ranks tests showed statistically significant differences. High viscosity glass ionomer showed significantly less microleakage compared to the nano-filled resin-modified glass-ionomer (RMGIs) at occlusal margin (P = 0.001). No significant differences were found between the groups at gingival margin (P = 0.0317).

Conclusion:

Within the limitations of this in vitro study, nano-filled RMGIs restorations did not perform better than high viscosity glass ionomer in class V cavities in terms of microleakage assessment.

Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three restorative glass ionomer cements: An in vitro study

Purpose:

The aim of this study was to compare the microleakage of glass ionomers (conventional and resin modified) with that of recently introduced nanoionomers.

Materials and Methods:

Standardized class I and class V cavities were prepared on 120 young permanent teeth. Samples were equally divided into group I (class I restorations) and group II (class V restorations), and further divided into subgroups. The subgroups were restored with Fuji IX, Fuji II LC, and newly introduced Ketac^™ N 100 (KN 100). Samples were thermocycled and submerged in Acridine dye for 24 h. Samples were sectioned to view under fluorescent microscope and marginal leakage was evaluated by Chi-square and Kruskal — Wallis test.

Results:

Fuji IX showed the maximum leakage, followed by LC II and the least was observed in KN 100. In class I restorations, there was significant difference while comparing Fuji IX with Fuji LC II and KN 100 and nonsignificant difference between LC II and KN100. In class V restorations, Fuji IX and KN100, KN 100 and LC II showed significant difference. Fuji IX and LC II showed nonsignificant difference.

Conclusion:

Within the limitations of this study, Fuji IX showed the maximum microleakage. KN 100 showed minimum leakage, better sealing ability, and was more consistent.

Clinical evaluation of a new art material: Nanoparticulated resin-modified glass ionomer cement

Context:

The success of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique depends on the restorative material; hence, clinical studies with various materials are necessary.

Aim:

The aim of the present study was to clinically evaluate and compare the nanoionomer and high-viscosity glass ionomer using United States Public Health Services (USPHS) Modified Cvar/Ryge Criteria with ART approach.

Materials and Methods:

Two primary molars in 50 healthy children aged between 5 and 8 years were selected for the study. The teeth were treated with ART and divided into two groups. The group 1 teeth were restored with nanoionomer (Ketac Nano 100 3M ESPE) and group 2 with high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (HVGIC), (Fuji IX GC). Each restoration was evaluated using the USPHS Modified Cvar/Ryge Criteria at baseline and 6 months’ and 12 months’ time interval.

Statistical analysis used:

Chi-squared (χ²) test.

Results:

Nanoionomer was significantly better than HVGIC with respect to color match at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months (P<0.001). Nanoionomers were also significantly better than HVGIC in case of cavosurface marginal discoloration and marginal adaptation (P<0.001) at 6 months and 12 months. There was no significant difference between the two materials with respect to secondary caries at 6 months (P>0.05), but at 12 months, nanoionomer was statistically better than HVGIC (P<0.05). There was no statistical significant difference with respect to anatomical form and postoperative sensitivity (P>0.05).

Conclusion:

The results indicate that nanoionomer can be a successful alternative restorative material for use with ART technique.