Abstract
PURPOSE: The present study aims to evaluate the in vitro microleakage of two layers GIC proximal restorations in primary molars.
METHODS: Forty primary molars received proximal cavity preparations and were randomly divided in two groups. G1 was restored with a regular powder/liquid ratio GIC. G2 firstly received a flowable layer of GIC and secondly a regular GIC layer. After 24h water storage (37 degrees C), the teeth were made impermeable with the exception of the restoration area and 1 mm of their surrounding, immersed in 0.5% methylene blue solution (4h), rinsed and sectioned mesio-distally. One side was polished and analyzed under light microscope. Replicates from the other side were observed under SEM. Microleakage evaluation was carried out by 3 evaluators.
RESULTS: The data analysis (Mann-Whitney) showed a significant (P<0.01) better result for G2. Regarding the SEM evaluation, irregularities were observed in the G1 at the tooth/GIC interface. For G2, it was not possible to observe any displacement of the GIC in relation to the tooth structure, which confirmed better adaptation as seen in the microleakage test.
CONCLUSION: the insertion of a flowable GIC layer in proximal cavities before the insertion of a regular GIC layer improves the material adaptation to the tooth.
METHODS: Forty primary molars received proximal cavity preparations and were randomly divided in two groups. G1 was restored with a regular powder/liquid ratio GIC. G2 firstly received a flowable layer of GIC and secondly a regular GIC layer. After 24h water storage (37 degrees C), the teeth were made impermeable with the exception of the restoration area and 1 mm of their surrounding, immersed in 0.5% methylene blue solution (4h), rinsed and sectioned mesio-distally. One side was polished and analyzed under light microscope. Replicates from the other side were observed under SEM. Microleakage evaluation was carried out by 3 evaluators.
RESULTS: The data analysis (Mann-Whitney) showed a significant (P<0.01) better result for G2. Regarding the SEM evaluation, irregularities were observed in the G1 at the tooth/GIC interface. For G2, it was not possible to observe any displacement of the GIC in relation to the tooth structure, which confirmed better adaptation as seen in the microleakage test.
CONCLUSION: the insertion of a flowable GIC layer in proximal cavities before the insertion of a regular GIC layer improves the material adaptation to the tooth.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 12-16 |
| Journal | Journal of Dentistry for Children |
| Volume | 77 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - 2010 |
