Microleakage of Class V resin-modified glass ionomer and compomer restorations.
BACKGROUND
Resin-modified glass ionomers and polyacid-modified resin composites (compomers) have been introduced to provide esthetic restorations. However, there is concern about the marginal sealing ability of these materials, especially at the dentin (cementum) aspects of restorations.


OBJECTIVE
This in vitro study evaluated the microleakage of Class V restorations made with resin-modified glass ionomers or a compomer.


METHODS
Thirty noncarious human molar teeth were used. Standardized kidney-shaped Class V cavity preparations were placed in the buccal and lingual surfaces at the cementoenamel junction. Teeth were randomly assigned to 3 experimental groups of 10 teeth each and restored as follows: group 1, Fuji II LC; group 2, Vitremer; and group 3, Dyract. In all cases, the manufacturers' instructions were strictly followed. All materials were placed in a single increment. Unfinished restorations were immediately coated with the respective manufacturers' sealer or varnish and this was either light cured for 20 seconds or allowed to air-dry. After 24 hours, teeth were finished to contour and to the cavosurface margins, coated with nail varnish except for 1 mm around the restoration margin, thermocycled (1000x, 5-55 degrees C) and placed in a solution of 2% basic fuchsin dye for 24 hours at room temperature. The staining along the tooth restoration interface was recorded.


RESULTS
Kruskal-Wallis 1-way analysis of variance revealed significant differences among all restorative materials for the overall, occlusal, and gingival scores (P =.03, P =.01, P =.01, respectively). Occlusal and gingival scores for each matched pair of restorative materials using the Wilcoxon test showed statistically significant differences between Fuji II LC glass ionomer cement and Dyract composite, both for the occlusal (P =.005) and gingival (P =.005) margins and also as an overall evaluation (P =.01), with Fuji II LC showing the least dye penetration. Vitremer revealed dye penetration scores not significantly different from Fuji II LC glass ionomer cement or Dyract composite.


CONCLUSIONS
Resin-modified glass ionomers showed less or similar microleakage than the polyacid-modified composite resin tested.
Toledano
M
M
University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Osorio
E
E
Osorio
R
R
García-Godoy
F
F
D000704:Analysis of Variance; D020770:Compomers; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry*; D001840:Dental Bonding; D003737:Dental Cavity Preparation / Q000145:classification; D003739:Dental Cementum / Q000648:ultrastructure; D003763:Dental Leakage / Q000175:diagnosis*; D003775:Dental Polishing; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000145:classification*; D003804:Dentin / Q000648:ultrastructure; D004955:Esthetics, Dental; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements / Q000737:chemistry*; D006801:Humans; D008422:Materials Testing; D008689:Methacrylates / Q000737:chemistry*; D008963:Molar; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000737:chemistry*; D012117:Resins, Synthetic / Q000737:chemistry; D012394:Rosaniline Dyes; D017640:Silicates / Q000737:chemistry*; D013499:Surface Properties; D013816:Thermodynamics; D019237:Tooth Cervix / Q000648:ultrastructure
D020770:Compomers; D003188:Composite Resins; C088486:Dyract; C079765:Fuji II LC cement; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D008689:Methacrylates; D019279:Resin Cements; D012117:Resins, Synthetic; D012394:Rosaniline Dyes; D017640:Silicates; C084550:Vitremer; C025485:basic fuchsin