Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Bioactive, Ormocer, and Conventional GIC Restorative Materials in Primary Molars: An In Vitro Study Microleakage of Three Restorative Materials.

Khushboo Jain,Shilpa Shetty,Devendra Patil,Farhin Katge,Sanjana Ghadge,Manohar Poojari,Murilo Baena Lopes

doi:10.1155/2022/7932930

Khushboo Jain, Shilpa Shetty + Show 5 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7932930

Copy DOI

Abstract

This in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the microleakage of bioactive, ormocer, and conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorative materials in primary molars. In this study, class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surface of 75 noncarious extracted primary molars. The teeth were then restored as per the groups assigned. Group A, group B, and group C used bioactive restorative materials, ormocer restorative materials, and conventional GIC restorative materials for restorations, respectively. The teeth were then thermocycled and subjected to microleakage analysis via dye penetration. The microleakage scores were compared for differences using the Kruskal–Wallis test. This was followed by multiple pairwise comparisons using the Dunn test. All testing was carried out using a ‘p' value of <0.05. The percentage of samples showing microleakage score 0 depicting no dye penetration was highest for group A (56%) followed by group C (44%) and group B (12%). Statistical analysis revealed highest microleakage with group B, which was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Microleakage was evident in all the materials tested. The lowest microleakage was seen with bioactive restorative material.

Highlights

Microleakage remains a major cause of failure of restorations. It is the precursor of secondary caries, staining of restorations, tooth discoloration, marginal deterioration, postoperative sensitivity, and pulpal pathology [10]. Us, this in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the microleakage of bioactive, ormocer, and conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorative materials in primary molars. e null hypothesis proposed was that there would be no significant difference between the three materials in terms of microleakage
ACTIVATM kids BioACTIVE restorative in the present study showed least microleakage when compared to other two restorative materials. e phosphate acid groups in the ionic resin component of ACTIVATM kids improve the interaction between the resin and the reactive glass fillers. is leads to an augmented interaction of ACTIVATM kids restorative to the tooth structure
Based on the findings of the present study, the following conclusions can be made: (1) All restorative materials tested in this in vitro study exhibited some amount of microleakage in primary molars

Summary

Introduction

Recent advancements in adhesive dentistry have restricted the cavity size and shape to minimally invasive [1]. Despite the continuous evolution of restorative materials, problems such as marginal microleakage still persist. Microleakage may be defined as the clinically undetectable passage of bacteria, fluids, molecules, or ions between a cavity wall and the restorative material applied to it [2]. Conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) is widely used for restoring posterior primary teeth due to its ease of use and acceptable esthetics [4]. E cement has favorable properties such as chemical adhesion to dentin and enamel, fluoride release, coefficient of thermal expansion similar to dentin, and pulpal biocompatibility. The decreased wear resistance and low physical properties of GIC make their use limited in certain clinical conditions [5]

Methods

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion