Abstract
This study was performed to compare the marginal microleakage of ormocer restorative material with that of giomer in vivo. Forty Class I cavities were prepared in non-carious permanent premolar teeth from 10 patients. Twenty cavities were filled with giomer and the remaining 20 cavities were filled by ormocer restorative materials. After one month, teeth were extracted, immersed in rhodamine dye solution, and then longitudinally bisected to assess the degree of dye penetration by stereoscopy. Furthermore, the gap between the dental material and tooth tissue were observed by the scanning electron microscope. The results showed that no microleakage (score 0) was detected in 15 ormocer and 5 giomer restorations. The remaining restorations were associated with dye penetration which was due to gap formation as seen in stereoscopic and scanning electron microscopic observations. The differences between ormocer and giomer restorative materials in respect to dye penetration were statistically significant. It can be concluded that ormocer restorative material shows less microleakage than that of giomer.
Highlights
In dentistry, the loss of tooth structure due to caries, fracture or wear can be replaced or repaired to restore the tooth to its form and function
Marginal microleakage results in the development of secondary carious lesions, pulpal pathology, post-operative pain and sensitivity. They are all responsible for the potential failure of the restoration.[3]
It was revealed that giomer restorations associated with dye penetration was due to gap formation as seen in stereoscopic and scanning electron microscope observation (Figure 1CD)
Summary
The loss of tooth structure due to caries, fracture or wear can be replaced or repaired to restore the tooth to its form and function. Microleakage of a restoration is one of the main reasons for its failure.[1] Microleakage means passage of bacteria, fluids, molecules, ions along the various gap present in the cavity/restoration interface.[1] Clinically, the majority of restorative materials show varying degree of marginal microleakage either due to changes in dimension or a lack of good adaptation to cavity walls.[2] Marginal microleakage results in the development of secondary carious lesions, pulpal pathology, post-operative pain and sensitivity They are all responsible for the potential failure of the restoration.[3] To reduce microleakage, many authors have been suggested to improve the bond strength of a restoration
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University Journal
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
