Microleakage evaluation of Silorane-based composite and Methacrylate-based composite in class II box preparations using two different layering techniques: An in vitro study

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the microleakage in Class II box preparations with the gingival margin above and below the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) restored with Silorane composite and methacrylate composite using two different layering techniques. Materials and Methods: Standardized...

Повний опис

Збережено в:
Бібліографічні деталі
Автори: Asha Joseph (Автор), Lekha Santhosh (Автор), Jayshree Hegde (Автор), Srinivas Panchajanya (Автор), Reshmi George (Автор)
Формат: Книга
Опубліковано: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2013-01-01T00:00:00Z.
Предмети:
Онлайн доступ:Connect to this object online.
Теги: Додати тег
Немає тегів, Будьте першим, хто поставить тег для цього запису!

MARC

LEADER 00000 am a22000003u 4500
001 doaj_f79fadfe004d497fb1eceaa57f1ab01d
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Asha Joseph  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Lekha Santhosh  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Jayshree Hegde  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Srinivas Panchajanya  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Reshmi George  |e author 
245 0 0 |a Microleakage evaluation of Silorane-based composite and Methacrylate-based composite in class II box preparations using two different layering techniques: An in vitro study 
260 |b Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications,   |c 2013-01-01T00:00:00Z. 
500 |a 0970-9290 
500 |a 1998-3603 
500 |a 10.4103/0970-9290.114943 
520 |a Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the microleakage in Class II box preparations with the gingival margin above and below the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) restored with Silorane composite and methacrylate composite using two different layering techniques. Materials and Methods: Standardized box preparations (mesial box 1 mm above the CEJ and distal box 1 mm below the CEJ) were prepared in 60 upper premolars. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups containing 15 samples each; Group I: Restored with a Silorane composite using an oblique layering technique, Group II: Restored with Silorane composite using a vertical layering technique, Group III: Restored with methacrylate composite using the oblique layering technique, and Group IV: Restored with methacrylate composite using the vertical layering technique. The samples were stored in distilled water, followed by thermocycling and immersed in 2% methylene blue. The samples were sectioned and evaluated for microleakage at the gingival margin. Statistical Analysis: Kruskal-Wallis, Fischer exact test, Wilicoxon test, and Mann-Whitney U test. Results: Silorane composite had significantly lesser microleakage. No significant difference in microleakage was observed above and below the CEJ for Silorane-based composite. Conclusion: Silorane composite resin showed lesser microleakage compared to methacrylate composite resin. Clinical Significance: The Silorane-based composites improve the marginal adaptation due to their reduced shrinkage, thereby decreasing the residual stress at the adhesive-tooth interface. 
546 |a EN 
690 |a Microleakage 
690 |a polymerization shrinkage 
690 |a Silorane 
690 |a Dentistry 
690 |a RK1-715 
655 7 |a article  |2 local 
786 0 |n Indian Journal of Dental Research, Vol 24, Iss 1, Pp 148-148 (2013) 
787 0 |n http://www.ijdr.in/article.asp?issn=0970-9290;year=2013;volume=24;issue=1;spage=148;epage=148;aulast=Joseph 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9290 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3603 
856 4 1 |u https://doaj.org/article/f79fadfe004d497fb1eceaa57f1ab01d  |z Connect to this object online.