Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.47(3) > 1034595

TOOLS
Han, Kim, Choi, Oh, and Lee: Comparison of microleakage after load cycling for nanofilled composite resin fillings with or without flowable resin lining
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2009;47(3):342-347.

Published online: 18 December 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2009.47.3.342

Comparison of microleakage after load cycling for nanofilled composite resin fillings with or without flowable resin lining

Sun-Deok Han, DDS1, Won Kim, DDS1, Ji-Young Choi, DDS1, Namsik Oh, DDS2, ∗, Myung-Hyun Lee, PhD3

1Graduate student, Department of Prosthodontics, Inha University

2Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Inha University

3Institute of ceramic engineering and technology, Korea

Corresponding Author: Nam-Sik Oh Department of Prosthodontics, Inha University, 7-206, #3 Sinhung-Dong, Jung-Gu, Incheon, 400-711, Korea +82 32 890-3594: e-mail, onsdo@inha.ac.kr

Received 24 June 20096 July 2009       Accepted 10 July 2009

Copyright © 2009 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Statement of problem

when using resin for class II restoration, micoleakage by instrumentation can be regarded as the primary negative characteristic. A review of the available literature suggests that using flowable resin as liner to decreased microleakage.

Purpose

The aim of this study was to determine the influence of the nanofilled flowable resin lining on marginal microleakage after load cycling in class II composite restoration fillings using nanofiller resin.

Material and methods

24 extracted premolars were prepared with class II cavity. F group was restored the nanofilled resin with the nanofilled flowable resin as liner. NF group was restored the nanofilled resin only. After restoration, an experiment was performed on 2 groups using a 300N load at 104, 105 and 106 cycles. Prior to and before each load cycling, it was gauged length on total marginal microleakage, axial marginal microleakage and buccal, gingival, lingual marginal microleakage. Data were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney test & Kruskal-Wallis test.

Results

There were statistically significant differences between 2 groups and between individual groups. (P < .05) The result showed less microleakage in teeth restored by the nanofilled resin, which was lined by the nanofilled flowable resin.

Conclusion

There was significant reduction in microleakage when the nanofilled flowable resin lining was placed underneath the nanofilled resin in class II composite restoration fillings. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2009;47:342-7)

Keywords: nanofilled resin, nanofilled flowable resin, microleakage, load cycling

REFERENCES

1.Browning WD., Brackett WW., Gilpatrick RO. Two-year clinical comparison of a microfilled and a hybrid resin-based composite in non-carious Class V lesions. Oper Dent. 2000. 25:46–50.
2.Ward DH. Esthetic restoration of tooth structure using a nanofill composite system. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2005. 26(252, 254):256–7.
3.Yap AU., Yap SH., Teo CK., Ng JJ. Comparison of surface finish of new aesthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent. 2004. 29:100–4.
4.Ritter AV. Direct resin-based composites: current recommendations for optimal clinical results. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2005. 26:481–2. 484–90.
5.Holmes JR., Bayne SC., Holland GA., Sulik WD. Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent. 1989. 62:405–8.
crossref
6.Huysmans MC., van der Varst PG., Lautenschlager EP., Monaghan P. The influence of simulated clinical handling on the flexural and compressive strength of posterior composite restorative materials. Dent Mater. 1996. 12:116–20.
crossref
7.Lindberg A., van Dijken JW., Ho ¨rstedt P. In vivo interfacial adaptation of class II resin composite restorations with and without a flowable resin composite liner. Clin Oral Investig. 2005. 9:77–83.
8.Jain P., Belcher M. Microleakage of Class II resin-based composite restorations with flowable composite in the proximal box. Am J Dent. 2000. 13:235–8.
9.Wibowo G., Stockton L. Microleakage of Class II composite restorations. Am J Dent. 2001. 14:177–85.
10.Belli S., Orucoglu H., Yildirim C., Eskitascioglu G. The effect of fiber placement or flowable resin lining on microleakage in Class II adhesive restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2007. 9:175–81.
11.Beznos C. Microleakage at the cervical margin of composite Class II cavities with different restorative techniques. Oper Dent. 2001. 26:60–9.
12.Lutz E., Krejci I., Oldenburg TR. Elimination of polymerization stresses at the margins of posterior composite resin restorations: a new restorative technique. Quintessence Int. 1986. 17:777–84.
13.Frankenberger R., Roth S., Kra ¨mer N., Pelka M., Petschelt A. Effect of preparation mode on Class II resin composite repair. J Oral Rehabil. 2003. 30:559–64.
crossref
14.Tjan AH., Bergh BH., Lidner C. Effect of various incremental techniques on the marginal adaptation of class II composite resin restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 1992. 67:62–6.
crossref
15.Hasegawa T., Manabe A., Itoh K., Wakumoto S. Investigation of self-etching dentin primers. Dent Mater. 1989. 5:408–10.
crossref

Fig. 1.
Dimension of preparation.
jkap-47-342f1.tif
Fig. 2.
Method of resin filling.
jkap-47-342f2.tif
Fig. 3.
Instron 8871 Dynamic Material Testing Machine (Instron, UK) 8871: Axial-only. Maximum load capacities of ± 5 KN (± 1.1 Kip) and ± 10 KN (± 2.2 Kip).
jkap-47-342f3.tif
Fig. 4.
Mean Percentage of microleakage before load cycling.
jkap-47-342f4.tif
Fig. 5.
Mean Percentage of microleakage after load cycling.
jkap-47-342f5.tif
Fig. 6.
The scanning electron micron photograph shows a representative tooth surface with microleakage.
jkap-47-342f6.tif
Fig. 7.
The scanning electron micron photograph shows a representative tooth surface without microleakage.
jkap-47-342f7.tif
Table I.
Percentage of microleakage length before load cycling (%)
Before loading g B G L A T
Group F F1 0 0 0 0 0
F2 7.27 0 0 3.62 1.25
F3 0 0 3.12 1.3 0.75
Group NF NF1 3.22 3.42 0 1.5 2.15
NF2 4 13.4 6.27 5 8
NF3 0 11.9 7.1 3.25 6.77

B - buccal G - gingival L - lingual A - axial (B+L) T - total F1, NF1 - 104 cycle F2, NF2 - 105 cycle F3, NF3- 106 cycle

Table II.
Percentage of microleakage length after load cycling (%)
After loading Cycle B G L A T
Group F F1 0 0 0 0 0
F2 14.8 14.2 8 11.7 11.5
F3 17.1 42.7 13.3 15.6 27.4
Group NF NF1 7.95 9.65 2.4 5.3 6.6
NF2 15.9 62.7 29.7 21.9 38.2
NF3 20.4 82.8 49.6 36 64.2

B - buccal G - gingival L - lingual A - axial (B+L) T - total F1, NF1 - 104 cycle F2, NF2 - 105 cycle F3, NF3 - 106 cycle

Table III.
P values for difference about microleakage before loading
Before loading B G L A T
F 0.405 - 0.405 0.530 0.590
NF 0.616 0.455 0.620 0.676 0.503
Table IV.
P values for difference about microleakage after loading
After loading B G L A T
F 0.532 0.097 0.281 0.204 0.072
NF 0.643 0.001∗ 0.113 0.031∗ 0.001∗

∗ P value (<.05) was statistically significant difference in microleakage

Table V.
P values for difference about microleakage between before and after loading
Between loading B G L A T
F 0.56 0.097 0.297 0.283 0.072
NF 0.821 0.004∗ 0.156 0.058∗ 0.006∗

∗ P value (<.05) was statistically significant difference in microleakage

TOOLS
Similar articles