| ORIGINAL RESEARCH |
|
| Year : 2017 | Volume
: 9
| Issue : 4 | Page : 151-155 |
|
|
Comparison of marginal adaptation of a silorane-based composite versus two methacrylate-based composites in different depths of Class V restorations
Mohadese Shakerian
Department of Operative Dentistry, Dental School, Rafsanjan University of Medical Science, Rafsanjan, Iran
Correspondence Address:
Mohadese Shakerian
Department of Operative Dentistry, Dental School, Rafsanjan University of Medical Science, Rafsanjan
Iran
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jioh.jioh_109_17
|
|
|
Aims: Determining the best restorative material to decrease microleakage in Class V restorations is of great importance in operative dentistry. This in vitro study compared the microleakage of a low-shrinkage silorane-based composite with two methacrylate-based composites in different depths of cavity in enamel and dentin. Materials and Methods: Class V cavities, with the length and width of 3 mm but two different depths of 1 and 1.5 mm, were prepared in the buccal surface of 72 extracted human premolars. Each group was randomly divided into three subgroups of 12 specimens. In Subgroup 1, enamel was etched with 37.5% phosphoric acid and cavities were restored with silorane-based resin composite (Filtek P90) with its dedicated adhesive system (P90 system adhesive). In Subgroups 2 and 3, the cavities were etched and restored with methacrylate-based resin composites (Point 4, with OptiBond Solo Plus adhesive and Filtek Z250 XT with Single Bond Universal adhesive). All the specimens were thermocycled and then immersed in 0.5% methylene blue for 24 h at 37°C, next were sectioned for taking digital photographs and were evaluated with Adobe Photoshop 8 software, with magnification of ×20. The results were subjected to Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests (P = 0.05). Results: All the three materials utilized in this study exhibited some degree of leakage. There were no significant differences between Filtek P90 and two methacrylate-based composite resins (P > 0.05). Furthermore, the results showed that there was no statistically significant relationship between preparations with different depths (P > 0.05); however, microleakage in enamel margins was significantly lower than dentin margins (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Silorane was not superior to the methacrylate-based composites in terms of microleakage. No significant relationship was found between the depth of cavities and the degree of microleakage, but microleakage was higher in dentinal margins.
|
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
