head JofIMAB
Journal of IMAB - Annual Proceeding (Scientific Papers)
Publisher: Peytchinski Publishing Ltd.
ISSN: 1312-773X (Online)
Issue: 2019, vol. 25, issue1
Subject Area: Dental Medicine
-
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2019251.2426
Published online: 19 March 2019

Original article

J of IMAB. 2019 Jan-Mar;25(1):2426-2432
EVALUATION OF IMPACT OF LINING APPLICATION TECHNIQUES ON MARGINAL MICROLEAKAGE IN RESIN-MODIFIED GLASS IONOMER CEMENT IN CLASS II COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS: AN IN VITRO STUDY
Janet Kirilova1ORCID logo, Snezhanka Topalova-Pirinska1ORCID logo, Dimitar Kirov2ORCID logo Corresponding Autoremail,
1) Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University, Sofia, Bulgaria.
2) Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University, Sofia, Bulgaria.

ABSTRACT:
Aim of the study: The aim is to evaluate and compare marginal microleakage of class II resin composite restorations using a flowable composite and resin-modified glass-ionomer cement as intermediate layers, and to assess whether a difference in the thickness, consistency, and position of these layers would influence microleakage.
Material and Methods: Forty-two extracted intacted molars were divided into six groups. Class II cavities in medial and distal parts were prepared. Cavities in Group А were lined with a flowable composite resin; Group В had no lining; in Group С1, the axial wall was covered with a 1.5 mm resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) layer; in Group С2, axial and gingival walls were covered with a 2.5 mm RMGIC layer; in Group С3, the axial wall was covered with a 1 mm RMGIC layer; and in Group С4, axial and gingival walls were covered with a 1 mm RMGIC layer.
Results: No significant microleakage differences existed between groups A and B and the experimental group C3. In group C3, a low-viscosity RMGIC was applied only on the axial dentin wall of the cavity. Such difference, however, exists in comparison of group C1 or C2 with each of the groups A or B (p < 0.0001). The difference between groups C4 and A (p < 0.0001) was also significant.
Conclusion: The least microleakage along the gingival walls of the model cavities with RMGIC occurs when a 1-mm layer of resin-modified glass-ionomer with fluid consistency covers only the axial wall of the proximal cavity.

Keywords: closed-sandwich technique, flowable resin composite, marginal microleakage, resin-modified glass-ionomer,

pdf - Download FULL TEXT /PDF 829 KB/
Please cite this article as: Kirilova J, Topalova-Pirinska S, Kirov D. Evaluation of impact of lining application techniques on marginal microleakage in resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class II composite restorations: An in vitro study. J of IMAB. 2019 Jan-Mar;25(1):2426-2432.
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2019251.2426

Corresponding AutorCorrespondence to: Dimitar Kirov, assistant Professor, DDS, PhD, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University Sofia; 1, St. Georgi Sofyiski Str., 1431 Sofia, Bulgaria; E-mail: dimiterkirov@gmail.com

REFERENCES:
1. Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW. A Review of Glass-Ionomer Cements for Clinical Dentistry. J Funct Biomater. 2016 Jun 28;7(3). pii: E16. [PubMed] [Crossref]
2. Aggarwal V, Singla M, Yadav S, Yadav H, Ragini. Marginal Adaptation Evaluation of Biodentine and MTA Plus in "Open Sandwich" Class II Restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2015 May-Jun;27(3):167-75. [PubMed] [Crossref]
3. Mount GJ. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Glass-ionomer cements: past, present and future. Oper Dent. 1994 May-Jun;19(3):82-90. [PubMed]
4. Chuang SF, Jin YT, Liu JK, Chang CH, Shieh DB. Influence of flowable composite lining thickness on Class II composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2004 May-Jun;29(3):301-8. [PubMed]
5. Majety KK, Pujar M. In vitro evaluation of microleakage of class II packable composite resin restorations using flowable composite and resin modified glass ionomers as intermediate layers. J Conserv Dent. 2011 Oct;14(4):414-7. [PubMed] [Crossref]
6. Güray Efes B, Yaman BC, Gümüştaş B, Tiryaki M. The effects of glass ionomer and flowable composite liners on the fracture resistance of open-sandwich class II restorations. Dent Mater J. 2013; 32(6):877-82. [PubMed] [Crossref]
7. Strober B, Veitz-Keenan A, Barna JA, Matthews AG, Vena D, Craig RG, et al. Effectiveness of a resin-modified glass ionomer liner in reducing hypersensitivity in posterior restorations: a study from the practitioners engaged in applied research and learning network. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013 Aug;144(8):886-97. [PubMed] [Crossref]
8. Aggarwal V, Singla M, Yadav S, Yadav H. Effect of flowable composite liner and glass ionomer liner on class II gingival marginal adaptation of direct composite restorations with different bonding strategies. J Dent. 2014 May;42(5):619-25. [PubMed] [Crossref]
9. Lynch CD, Opdam NJ, Hickel R, Brunton PA, Gurgan S, Kakaboura A, et al. Guidance on posterior resin composites: Academy of Operative Dentistry-European Section. J Dent. 2014 Apr;42(4):377-83. [PubMed] [Crossref]
10. Sawani S, Arora V, Jaiswal S, Nikhil V. Comparative evaluation of microleakage in Class II restorations using open vs. closed centripetal build-up techniques with different lining materials. J Conserv Dent. 2014 Jul;17(4):345-8. [PubMed] [Crossref]
11. Weston J. Use of a Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer (RMGI) Liner in Conservative Direct Treatment of Deep Caries. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2015 Jan;36(1):42-5. [PubMed]
12. Velagapudi NJ, Reddy ER, Aduri R, Prasad MG, Sahana S, Vaila A. Comparative evaluation of marginal integrity and microleakage in nanoionomer and low shrinkage posterior composite restorative materials: An in vitro study. J Int Oral Health. 2016; 8(2):261-266.
13. Tantbirojn D, Rusin RP, Bui HT, Mitra SB. Inhibition of dentin demineralization adjacent to a glass-ionomer/composite sandwich restoration. Quintessence Int. 2009 Apr;40(4):287-94. [PubMed]
14. Mount GJ. The wettability of bonding resins used in the composite resin/ glass-ionomer ‘sandwich technique’. Austr Dent J. 1989 Feb;34(1):32–35. [PubMed]
15. Lynch E, Tay WM. Glass-ionomer cement. Part IV, Clinical properties III. J Ir Dent Assoc. 1989 Jun;35(2):75–82. [PubMed]
16. Puckett AD, Fitchie JG, Bennett B, Hembree JH. Microleakage and thermal properties of hybrid ionomer restoratives. Quintessence Int. 1995 Aug;26(8):577-81. [PubMed]
17. Qvist V, Poulsen A, Teglers PT, Mjor IA. Fluorides leaching from restorative materials and the effect on adjacent teeth. Int Dent J. 2010 Jun;60(3):156-60. [PubMed]
18. Rosenberg L, Atar M, Daronch M, Honig A, Chey M, Funny M, et al. Observational: prospective Study of Indirect Pulp Treatment in Primary Molars Using Resin-modified Glass lonomer and 2% Chlorhexidine Gluconate: A 12-month Follow-up. Pediat Dent. 2013 Jan-Feb;35(1):13-7. [PubMed]
19. Brackett WW, Gunnin TD, Johnson WW, Conkin JE. Microleakage of light-cured glass-ionomer restorative materials. Quintessence Int. 1995 Aug;26(8):583-5. [PubMed]
20. Davidović L, Tomić S, Stanojević M, Živković S. Microleakage of Glass Ionomer Cement Restorations. Serbian Dent J. 2009;56(2):79–83. [Crossref]
21. Kirilova J. [The role of glass-ionomer cements as bioactive material for treatment of aproximal caries on molars and premolars with “sandwich” restoration.] [dissertation] Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University Sofia. 2013. 230 pp. [in Bulgarian]
22. Duarte S Jr, Saad JR. Marginal adaptation of Class 2 adhesive restorations. Quintessence Int. 2008 May;39(5):413-9. [PubMed]
23. Sturdevant’s Art and Science of Operative Dentistry. Mosby Inc., St. Louis, 2006, 1006 p.
24. Van Dijken JW, Kieri C, Carlen M. Longevity of extensive class II open sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement. J Dent Res. 1999 Jul;78(7):1319-25. [PubMed] [Crossref]
25. McLean JW, Powis DR, Prosser HJ, Wilson AD. The use of glass ionomer cements in bonding composite resins to dentine. Br Dent J. 1985 Jun;158(11):410-4. [PubMed] [Crossref]
26. El-Askary FS, Nassif MS. The effect of the pre-conditioning step on the shear bond strength of nano-filled resin-modified glassionomer to dentin. Eur J Dent. 2011 Apr;5(2):150–6. [PubMed]
27. Yilmaz Y, Gurbuz T, Kocogullari ME. The influence of various conditioner agents on the interdiffusion zone and microleakage of a glass lonomer cement with a high viscosity in primary teeth. Oper Dent. 2005 Jan-Feb;30(1):105-12. [PubMed]
28. Simi B, Suprabha BS. Evaluation of microleakage in posterior nanocomposite restorations with adhesive liners. J Conserv Dent. 2011 Apr;14(2):178-81. [PubMed] [Crossref]
29. Nguyen KV, Sathorn C, Wong RH, Burrow MF. Clinical performance of laminate and non-laminate resin composite restorations: a systematic review. Aust Dent Journal. 2015 Dec;60(4):520-7. [PubMed] [Crossref]
30. Van de Sande F, Da Rossa Rodolpho P, Basso G, Patias R, Da Rossa Q, Demaeco F, et al. 18-year survival of posterior composite resin restorations with and without glass ionomer cement as base. Dent Mater. 2015 Jun;31(6):669-75. [PubMed] [Crossref]
31. Opdam NJ, Van de Sande F, Bronkhorst E, Cenci MS, Bottenberg P, Pallesen U, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014 Oct;93(10):943-9. [PubMed] [Crossref]
32. Payne JH 4th. The marginal seal of Class II restorations: Flowable composite resin compared to injectable glass ionomer. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1999 Winter;23(2):123–30. [PubMed]
33. Olmez, A. Oztas N, Bodur H. The effect of flowable resin composite on microleakage and internal voids in class II composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2004 Nov-Dec;29(6):713-9. [PubMed]
34. Lokhande NA, Padmai AS, Rathore VP, Shingane S, Jayashankar DN, Sharma U. Effectiveness of Flowable Resin Composite in Reducing Microleakage – an In Vitro Study. J Int Oral Health. 2014 Jun;6(3):111-4. [PubMed]
35. Neme AM, Maxson BB, Pink FE, Aksu MN. Microleakage of Class II packable resin composites lined with flowables: An in vitro study. Oper Dent. 2002 Nov-Dec;27:600–5. [PubMed]
36. Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Complete marginal seal of Class V resin composite restoration effected by increased flexibility. J Dent Res. 1990 Jun;69(6):1240-3. [PubMed] [Crossref]
37. Sageghi M, Lynch CD. The effect of flowable materials on microleakage of Class II composite restorations that extend apical to the cementoenamel junction. Oper Dent. 2009 May-Jun;34(3):306-11. [PubMed] [Crossref]

Received: 29 October 2018
Published online: 19 March 2019

back to Online Journal