Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry
Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry
                                                   Official journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry                           
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 35  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 238--243

Comparative evaluation of microleakage between bulk esthetic materials versus resin-modified glass ionomer to restore Class II cavities in primary molars


Vellore Kannan Gopinath 
 Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

Correspondence Address:
Vellore Kannan Gopinath
Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah, P. O. Box: 27272, Sharjah
United Arab Emirates

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.


How to cite this article:
Gopinath VK. Comparative evaluation of microleakage between bulk esthetic materials versus resin-modified glass ionomer to restore Class II cavities in primary molars.J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2017;35:238-243


How to cite this URL:
Gopinath VK. Comparative evaluation of microleakage between bulk esthetic materials versus resin-modified glass ionomer to restore Class II cavities in primary molars. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent [serial online] 2017 [cited 2019 Aug 18 ];35:238-243
Available from: http://www.jisppd.com/article.asp?issn=0970-4388;year=2017;volume=35;issue=3;spage=238;epage=243;aulast=Gopinath;type=0