These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
Pubmed for Handhelds
PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS
Search MEDLINE/PubMed
Title: Comparative evaluation of microleakage between bulk esthetic materials versus resin-modified glass ionomer to restore Class II cavities in primary molars. Author: Gopinath VK. Journal: J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2017; 35(3):238-243. PubMed ID: 28762350. Abstract: AIM: The aim of the study was to assess the microleakage of one high-viscosity conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) and a bulk-fill composite resin, in comparison to a resin-modified GIC in Class II restorations in primary molars. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Standardized Class II slot cavity preparations were prepared in exfoliating primary molars. Teeth were restored using one of the three materials tested (n = 10): SonicFill bulk-fill composite resin (SF), EQUIA Fil conventional reinforced GIC (EQF), and Vitremer resin-reinforced GIC (VT). The restorations were then subjected to thermocycling procedure (×2000 5°C-55°C 10 s/min) and soaked in 1% neutralized fuchsin solution (pH: 7.4) for 24 h at 37°C. Teeth were sectioned longitudinally in a mesiodistal direction under continuous cooling into three slabs of 1 mm thickness and studied under a stereomicroscope for dye penetration. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data were evaluated by one-way analysis of variance and the Tukey's multiple comparison test employing 95% (α = 0.05). RESULTS: EQF and SF showed significantly lower microleakage scores and percentage of dye penetration (%RL) when compared to VT resin-reinforced GIC (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: SF and EQF produced the minimum microleakage when compared to VT in Class II restorations on primary molars. Fewer application procedures and reduction in treatment time in SF and EQF systems proved advantageous in pediatric dentistry.[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]