Microleakage evaluation on methacrilate and silorane-based restorations

Authors

  • Fabianni Magalhães Apolônio
  • Lidiane Costa de Souza
  • Maria do Socorro Guanabara Ramalho
  • Felipe Coelho Lima
  • Lidiany Karla Azevedo Rodrigues
  • Vicente de Paulo Aragão saboia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5335/rfo.v16i3.1795

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the performance of a conventional and a low shrinking restorative system in dentin and enamel margins of Class V restorations. Methods: Standardized box shaped Class V cavities (4x4x2mm) were prepared at the cement-enamel junction onto buccal, lingual, mesial and distal surfaces with margins in enamel and dentin of twenty non-carious human molars. The teeth were randomly divided into two groups and restored as: Group 1 (G1) – Clearfil SE applied according to the manufacturer´s and restored with composite resin Filtek Z250 and Group 2 (G2) – Silorane adhesive applied according to the manufacturer´s and restored with composite resin Filtek Silorane. Composite resin was applied in a bulk and polymerized for 40 second. The specimens were immersed in 2% methylene blue solution for 4 hours and sectioned longitudinally at the center of the restoration. The dye penetration on the adhesive interface was examined under a stereomicroscope and scored for both dentinal and enamel margins on scale from 0 to 3. Asymptotic significance was analyzed using Kruskall Wallis and Student-Newman-Keuls tests. Results: There was no significant difference between this two different restorative systems for both enamel and dentin margins (P>0.05). Conclusions: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it may be concluded that low shrinkage resin system had the same sealing ability compared to a conventional resin system.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Published

2012-03-12

Issue

Section

Artigos

How to Cite

Microleakage evaluation on methacrilate and silorane-based restorations. (2012). Revista Da Faculdade De Odontologia - UPF, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.5335/rfo.v16i3.1795