In vitro evaluation of different liners in microleakage of class II posterior composite restorations

Background and Aims: Packable composites with high viscosity might not adapt properly to internal surfaces and cervical areas. The aim of this study was to assess the microleakage of class II posterior composite restorations performed using different methods.Materials and Methods: Ninety proximal ca...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Behnaz Esmaeili, Ainaz Bazazi, Ali Bijani
Format: Article
Language:fas
Published: Tehran University of Medical Sciences 2012-01-01
Series:Journal of Dental Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journals.tums.ac.ir/abs/21562
id doaj-744d8c11083649c9ad31252cc9a4cdbb
record_format Article
spelling doaj-744d8c11083649c9ad31252cc9a4cdbb2020-11-24T23:58:49ZfasTehran University of Medical SciencesJournal of Dental Medicine1024-641X2008-24442012-01-01253174181In vitro evaluation of different liners in microleakage of class II posterior composite restorations Behnaz EsmaeiliAinaz BazaziAli BijaniBackground and Aims: Packable composites with high viscosity might not adapt properly to internal surfaces and cervical areas. The aim of this study was to assess the microleakage of class II posterior composite restorations performed using different methods.Materials and Methods: Ninety proximal cavities were prepared in extracted sound premolar teeth, divided into three groups and filled as follows: 1- packable composite (3M filtek P60), 2-Hybrid composite (Z250) + P60 composite and 3- Resin-modified glass ionomer liner + P60 composite. Afterwards, the samples were immersed in 0.5% Foushin solution and sectioned. Gingival microleakage was then graded. Obtained data were analyzed using paired t-test and analysis of variance. Results: In regard to distal cavities, significant difference was seen between the groups 1 and 3 (P=0.01) as well as groups 2 and 3 (P=0.03). Comparing microleakage of mesial and distal cavities, there was a significant difference in groups 1 (P=0.003) and 2 (P=0.005).Conclusion: Based on the findings of this study, application of Z250 composite had no effect on reduction of microleakage of class II posterior composite restorations. Vitremer liner decreased microleakage in dento-gingival margins.http://journals.tums.ac.ir/abs/21562CompositeLinerMicroleakage
collection DOAJ
language fas
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Behnaz Esmaeili
Ainaz Bazazi
Ali Bijani
spellingShingle Behnaz Esmaeili
Ainaz Bazazi
Ali Bijani
In vitro evaluation of different liners in microleakage of class II posterior composite restorations
Journal of Dental Medicine
Composite
Liner
Microleakage
author_facet Behnaz Esmaeili
Ainaz Bazazi
Ali Bijani
author_sort Behnaz Esmaeili
title In vitro evaluation of different liners in microleakage of class II posterior composite restorations
title_short In vitro evaluation of different liners in microleakage of class II posterior composite restorations
title_full In vitro evaluation of different liners in microleakage of class II posterior composite restorations
title_fullStr In vitro evaluation of different liners in microleakage of class II posterior composite restorations
title_full_unstemmed In vitro evaluation of different liners in microleakage of class II posterior composite restorations
title_sort in vitro evaluation of different liners in microleakage of class ii posterior composite restorations
publisher Tehran University of Medical Sciences
series Journal of Dental Medicine
issn 1024-641X
2008-2444
publishDate 2012-01-01
description Background and Aims: Packable composites with high viscosity might not adapt properly to internal surfaces and cervical areas. The aim of this study was to assess the microleakage of class II posterior composite restorations performed using different methods.Materials and Methods: Ninety proximal cavities were prepared in extracted sound premolar teeth, divided into three groups and filled as follows: 1- packable composite (3M filtek P60), 2-Hybrid composite (Z250) + P60 composite and 3- Resin-modified glass ionomer liner + P60 composite. Afterwards, the samples were immersed in 0.5% Foushin solution and sectioned. Gingival microleakage was then graded. Obtained data were analyzed using paired t-test and analysis of variance. Results: In regard to distal cavities, significant difference was seen between the groups 1 and 3 (P=0.01) as well as groups 2 and 3 (P=0.03). Comparing microleakage of mesial and distal cavities, there was a significant difference in groups 1 (P=0.003) and 2 (P=0.005).Conclusion: Based on the findings of this study, application of Z250 composite had no effect on reduction of microleakage of class II posterior composite restorations. Vitremer liner decreased microleakage in dento-gingival margins.
topic Composite
Liner
Microleakage
url http://journals.tums.ac.ir/abs/21562
work_keys_str_mv AT behnazesmaeili invitroevaluationofdifferentlinersinmicroleakageofclassiiposteriorcompositerestorations
AT ainazbazazi invitroevaluationofdifferentlinersinmicroleakageofclassiiposteriorcompositerestorations
AT alibijani invitroevaluationofdifferentlinersinmicroleakageofclassiiposteriorcompositerestorations
_version_ 1725449720008015872