Comparative evaluation of microleakage around Class V cavities restored with alkasite restorative material with and without bonding agent and flowable composite resin: An in vitro study

• Main Authors: Priyatama Meshram (Author), Vikas Meshram (Author), Devendra Palve (Author), Sanjay Patil (Author), Vandana Gade (Author), Amber Raut (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2019-01-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.

Summary

Background: Marginal adaptability of restorative material is one of the prime factors for success of a restoration. Aim: To evaluate microleakage at enamel restoration and dentin restoration interface of Class V cavities restored with new alkasite restorative material Cention-N, with and without using bonding agent and flowable composite resin. Materials and Methods: Thirty Class V tooth preparations were divided into three groups (n = 10): Group-I restored with Cention-N (Ivoclar Vivadent) without adhesive, Group-II was restored with Cention-N after application of eighth-generation bonding agent (3M ESPE, Single Bond Universal Adhesive), and Group-III was restored with flowable composite resin (Tetric-N-Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent). All samples were subjected to 200 thermocycles between temperature baths at 5°C and 55°C. All samples were cut longitudinally through the center of the restorations with the help of isomet diamond saw. The sections were then observed under binocular stereomicroscope at 20×. Two evaluators scored the depth of dye penetration independently at enamel and dentin margins. Statistical Analysis: Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric analysis followed by Dunn's multiple comparison tests were done to evaluate differences among the experimental groups. Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the difference between occlusal and gingival scores within each restoration. Results: Microleakage seen in decreasing order: Cention-N without adhesive >Flowable composite >Cention-N with adhesive. Conclusion: Microleakage at enamel restoration interface was less than microleakage at dentin restoration interface of each group, but the difference was not statistically significant. Least microleakage was seen with Cention-N with adhesive followed by flowable composite. More microleakage was seen with Cention-N without adhesive.

Item Description

0970-9290
1998-3603
10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_767_17