Tóm tắt

Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the microleakage of Class II restoration susing three different techniques. Materials and methods: The study was carried out in the laboratory with paired comparision between groups. Thirty Class II cavities were prepared on extracted non-carious human permanent molars, randomly divided into 3 groups, which were then restored with 3 different methods. Group 1: indirect composite inlay (Tetric N-Ceram) cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji Plus); Group 2: indirect composite inlay (Tetric N-Ceram) cemented flowable composite (Tetric N-flow); Group 3: direct composite restoration using Tetric N-Ceram. Before immersed to 2% methylene blue solution for 12 hours, all restorations were subjected to thermal cycling (100 cycles 50C – 550C). The extent of dye penetration along the gingival wall was assessed using a grade scale from 0 to 3 under 40 times magnification using digital camera Nikon D7000. Results: All types of restorations showed some rate of microleakage. In comparing the three techniques, group 1 demonstrated the significantly higher rate of leakage compared to the others (p<0.05), where as group 2 and 3 showed no significant difference. Conclusion: None of these three techniques is perfect to impede microleakage. Among the above-mentioned restorative methods, a considerably higher rate of microleakage exists when applying composite inlay cemented with Fuji Plus in comparison with the others. Composite inlay cemented with flowable composite (Tetric N – Flow) and direct composite restoration make no significant difference in their ability to prevent microleakage.

Từ khoá

Toàn văn

PDF

Trong số này