Abstract
A vital feature of conservative dentistry is the adhesion of the restorative material to the tooth structure for restoration of the tooth substance lost due to dental decay, trauma, or dental imperfections. In a perfect world, a restorative material should generate a lasting adhesion by bonding the restoration with tooth tissues. The ingress of micro-organisms, oral fluids, molecules, and ions through microscopic spaces due to faulty adhesion between restoration and tooth structure is known as microleakage. This study is focuses on the evaluation of adhesive failures between the restorative materials. In the past, studies have focused more on the bonding potential of a restorative material with the tooth surface. Therefore, there is need to carry out a study that compares the microleakage between resin-based restorative materials in a sandwich manner with and without the intermediate bonding layer after immersion in 2% methylene blue dye at different time intervals. The restorative materials used were composite Ceram X Mono plus (DENTSPLY) and Z350 (3M ESPE), Vitremer resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (3M ESPE), smart dentine replacement SDR (3M ESPE), Bond NT (DENTSPLY), and Universal Bond (3M ESPE). A light emitting diode (LED) was used to cure the specimens. Artificial saliva was used as a storage medium for the specimens. Thermocycling of specimens was carried out at 500 cycles/30 s and 1000 cycles/30 s. The world health organization (WHO) grading tool for microleakage was used to analyze fluid ingress in the specimens through disclosing by 2% methylene blue dye. The statistical analysis was carried out with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post hoc test, keeping the level of significance at p ≤ 0.05. In Grade 0 = 85 samples, Grade 1 = 10 samples, Grade 2 = 7 samples, Grade 3 = 16 samples, and in Grade 4 = 2 samples were identified. This study describes that no microleakage was observed in SDR and resin composite groups as compared to Vitremer and resin composite groups.
Highlights
Since the invention of dental composites in 1960, they have been modified in the accomplishment of appearance and durability [1]
The SDR material was used as base material in both the groups where no microleakage was observed, indicating a better bonding ability of SDR with resin composite material
The null hypothesis that “There is no microleakage between the two resin-based restorative materials in a sandwich manner, with and without the intermediate bonding layer after immersion in 2% methylene blue dye at different time intervals” was rejected
Summary
Since the invention of dental composites in 1960, they have been modified in the accomplishment of appearance and durability [1]. The ingress of micro-organisms, oral fluids, molecules, and ions through microscopic cracks due to faulty adhesion between restoration and tooth structure is known as microleakage [4,5]. This can cause increased sensitivity, recurrent caries, pulpitis, and tooth staining [6]. Microleakage in restorative materials could be a consequence of polymerization shrinkage, thermal contraction, water absorption, and mechanical stresses [7]. The resin-based restoration shows polymerization shrinkage [9]. The flowable composite produces decreased polymerization shrinkage, due to lower filler content [10]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
