Microleakage Evaluation of Silorane-Based Composites Versus Low Shirinkage Methacrylate-Based Composites

Kermanshah , Hamid; Yassini , Esmaeil; Hoseinifar , Raziyeh; Mirzaei , Mansoreh; Pahlavan , Ayub; Hasani Tabatabaie , Masomeh; Arami , Sakineh

[Home ] [Archive]

Main Menu

Journal Information

Editorial Policies

Articles archive

For Authors

Contact us

Site Facilities

Search in website

Receive site information

Last site contents
:: Contact Us

Volume 25, Issue 3 (7-2013)

J Iran Dent Assoc 2013, 25(3): 147-154

Back to browse issues page

Microleakage Evaluation of Silorane-Based Composites Versus Low Shirinkage Methacrylate-Based Composites

Hamid Kermanshah¹

, Esmaeil Yassini²

, Raziyeh Hoseinifar ^*

³, Mansoreh Mirzaei⁴

, Ayub Pahlavan⁵

, Masomeh Hasani Tabatabaie⁵

, Sakineh Arami⁴

1- Member of Dental Research Center and Laser Research and Assistant Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Science. Tehran, Iran
2- Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Science. Tehran, Iran
3- Member of Dental Diseases Research Center and Assistant Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Science. Kerman, Iran , r_hoseiniffar@yahoo.com
4- Assistant Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Science. Tehran, Iran
5- Associate Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Science. Tehran, Iran

Abstract: (7571 Views)

Background and Aim : Determining the best restorative material to decrease microleakage in class V restorations is of great importance in operative dentistry. The aim of this in-vitro study was to evaluate the microleakage of silorane-based composites compared to low shrinkage methacrylate-based composites in class V restorations.

Materials and Methods : In this in vitro study, class V cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 24 human premolars and molars (48 cavities). The specimens were divided into four groups of 6(12 cavities) as follows: group 1 ( LS System Adhesive, Primer & Bond + Filtek P90), group 2 ( Kalore-GC+ Clearfil SE bond ), group 3 ( Clearfil SE bond + Grandio) and group4 ( Clearfil SE bond + Aelite LS Posterior) . All the specimens were thermocycled for 2000 cycles (5-50oC).

The teeth were then immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye for 24 hours at 370C, sectioned and observed under stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests at a P<0.05 level of significance .

Results : There were no significant differences in microleakage among the four groups at the occlusal margin (P>0.05). But, there were statistically significant differences in microleakage between Silorane and Aelite at the gingival margin (P<0.05).

Statistically significant differences were also found in microleakage between occlusal and gingival margins (except for Kalore and Silorane) (P>0.05 )

Conclusion : Silorane was not superior to the conventional low shrinkage methacrylate-based composites except for Aelite in terms of microleakage .

Keywords: Composite resins, methacrylate, microleakage

Full-Text [PDF 177 kb] (2628 Downloads)

Type of Study: Original | Subject: Restorative Dentistry

References

1. Korkmaz Y, Ozel E, Attar N, Bicer CO, Firatli E. Microleakage and scanning electron microscopy evaluation of all-in-one self-etch adhesives and their respective nanocomposites prepared by erbium: yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser and bur. Lasers in Med Sci. 2010Jul;25(4):493-502.

2. Thonemann B, Federlin M, Schmalz G, Grundler W. Total bonding vs selective bonding: Marginal adaptation of Class 2 composite restorations. Oper Dent. 1999 Sep-Oct;24(5):261.

3. Yoshikawa T, Burrow MF, Tagami J. A light curing method for improving marginal sealing and cavity wall adaptation of resin composite restorations. Dent Mater. 2001 Jul;17(4):359-66.

4. Lutz F, Krejci I, Barbakow F. Quality and durability of marginal adaptation in bonded composite restorations. Dent Mater. 1991 Apr; 7 (2):107-13.

5. Guggenberger R, Weinmann W. Exploring beyond methacrylates. Am J Dent. 2000 Nov;13(Spec No): 82D-4D.

6. Weinmann W, Thalacker C, Guggenberger R. Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater. 2005 Jan; 21(1):68-74.

7. Eckert AS, Dede K, Ehbrecht S, Klettke T, Spenkuch A, Stippschild A, et al. First cationically curing oxirane based dental filling material. Polymer Preprints. 2004Jan;45(2):343.

8. Bernard Thalacker C, Heumann A, Weinmann W, Guggenberger R, Luchterhandt T, Syrek A. Marginal integrity of class V silorane and methacrylate composite restorations. J Dent Res. 2004 Aug;83:(Sl-A).

9. Bagis YH, Baltacioglu IH, Kahyaogullari S. Comparing microleakage and the layering methods of silorane-based resin composite in wide Class II MOD cavities. Oper Dent. 2009 Sep-Oct; 34(5): 578-85.

10. Krifka S, Federlin M, Hiller KA, Schmalz G. Microleakage of silorane- and methacrylate-based class V composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig. 2012 Aug; 16(4):1117-24.

11. Ernst CP, Galler P, Willershausen B, Haller B. Marginal integrity of class V restorations: SEM versus dye penetration. Dent Mater. 2008 Mar; 24 (3):319-27.

12. Umer F, Naz F, Khan FR. An in vitro evaluation of microleakage in class V preparations restored with Hybrid versus Silorane composites. J Conserv Dent. 2011 Apr;14(2):103-7.

13. Schmidt M, Kirkevang LL, Horsted-Bindslev P, Poulsen S. Marginal adaptation of a low-shrinkage silorane-based composite: 1-year randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2011 Apr; 15(2):291-5.

14. Klautau EB, Carneiro KK, Lobato MF, Machado SM, Silva e Souza MH, Jr. Low shrinkage composite resins: influence on sealing ability in unfavorable C-factor cavities. Braz Oral Res. 2011 Jan-Feb;25(1):5-12.

15. Takahashi H, Finger WJ, Wegner K, Utterodt A, Komatsu M, Wöstmann B, et al. Factors influencing marginal cavity adaptation of nanofiller containing resin composite restorations. Dent Mater. 2010 Dec; 26(12): 1166-75.

16. Tanno K, Hiraishi N, Otsuki M. Evaluation of cavity adaptation of low-shrinkage composite resin. Asian Pac J Dent. 2011Jan-June;11(1):27-33.

17. Terry DA, Leinfelder KF, Blatz MB. A comparison of advanced resin monomer technologies. Dent Today. 2009 Jul;28(7):122-3.

18. Deliperi S, Bardwell D, Wegley C. Restoration interface microleakage using one total-etch and three self-etch adhesives. Oper Dent. 2007 Mar-Apr;32(2): 179-84.

19. Ware Moszner N, Salz U, Zimmermann J. Chemical aspects of self-etching enamel–dentin adhesives: A systematic review. Dent Mater. 2005Oct; 21(10):895-910.

20. Kumari M, Taneja S, Prakash H. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of one self-etch and two total-etch bonding systems-An in vitro study. J Indian Dent Associ. 2011 June;5(6):679.

21. Sarr M, Kane AW, Vreven J, Mine A, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, et al. Microtensile bond strength and interfacial characterization of 11 contemporary adhesives bonded to bur-cut dentin. Oper Dent. 2010 Jan-Feb; 35 (1):94-104.

22. Schneider LFJ, Tango RN, Milan FM, Mundstock GV, Consani S, Sinhoreti MAC. Microleakage evaluation of composite restorations submitted to load cycling. Brazilian Dent Sci. 2010;7(4):27-33.

23. Pongprueksa P, Kuphasuk W, Senawongse P. Effect of elastic cavity wall and occlusal loading on microleakage and dentin bond strength. Oper Dent. 2007 Sep-Oct;32(5):466-75.

24. Hegde MN, Vyapaka P, Shetty S. A comparative evaluation of microleakage of three different newer direct composite resins using a self etching primer in class V cavities: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2009 Oct; 12(4):160.

25. Fruits TJ, VanBrunt CL, Khajotia SS, Duncanson MG, Jr. Effect of cyclical lateral forces on microleakage in cervical resin composite restorations. Quintessence Int. 2002 Mar; 33(3):205-12.

26. Yap AU, Ho KS, Wong KM. Comparison of marginal sealing ability of new generation bonding systems. J Oral Rehabil. 1998 Sep; 25(9):666-71.

27. Davidson C, De Gee A, Feilzer A. The competition between the composite-dentin bond strength and the polymerization contraction stress. J Dent Res. 1984 Dec;63(12):1396-9.

28. Sidhu S, Henderson L. Dentin adhesives and microleakage in cervical resin composites. Am J Dent. 1992 Oct; 5 (5):240.

29. Utterodt A, Rist A, Eck M, Schaub M, editors. Polymerization shrinkage stress and flexural strength of nano-composites. 42nd annual meeting of IADR-Continental (Sept 26th - 29th, 2007).

30. Monteiro GQM, Montes MAJR. Evaluation of linear polymerization shrinkage, flexural strength and modulus of elasticity of dental composites. Mater Res. 2010 Jun;13(1):51-5.

31. Boaro LC, Goncalves F, Guimaraes TC, Ferracane JL, Versluis A, Braga RR. Polymerization stress, shrinkage and elastic modulus of current low-shrinkage restorative composites. Dent Mater. 2010 Dec; 26(12): 1144-50.

32. Calheiros FC, Sadek FT, Braga RR, Cardoso PE. Polymerization contraction stress of low-shrinkage composites and its correlation with microleakage in class V restorations. J Dent. 2004 Jul;32(5):407-12.

33. Mine A, De Munck J, Van Ende A, Cardoso MV, Kuboki T, Yoshida Y, et al. TEM characterization of a silorane composite bonded to enamel/dentin. Dent Mater. 2010Jun; 26(6): 524-32.

34. Boaro L, Gajewski V, Froes N, Braga R, Miranda W. Mircroleakage and polymerization stress of low-shrinkage commercial composites. 2011. http:// iadr. confex.com/iadr/2011sandiego/web program/paper147581. html. Thursday, March 17, 2011.

35. D’Alpino PHP, Bechtold J, Santos PJ, Alonso RCB, Di Hipólito V, Silikas N, et al. Methacrylate-and silorane-based composite restorations: Hardness, depth of cure and interfacial gap formation as a function of the energy dose. Dent Mater. 2011Nov;27(11):1162-9.

36. Hooshmand T. Marginal Leakage of Silorane, Ormocer, and Dimethacrylate-based Composites. J Prosthet Dent .2009Dec;18(5):411-6.

37. Al-Boni R, Raja OM. Microleakage evaluation of silorane based composite versus methacrylate based composite. J Conserv Dent. 2010 Jul; 13(3):152-5.

38. Santini A, Miletic V. Comparison of the hybrid layer formed by Silorane adhesive, one-step self-etch and etch and rinse systems using confocal micro-Raman spectroscopy and SEM. J Dent. 2008 Sep;36(9):683-91.

39. Siso H, Kustarci A, Göktolga E. Microleakage in resin composite restorations after antimicrobial pre-treatments: effect of KTP laser, chlorhexidine gluconate and Clearfil Protect Bond. Oper Dent. 2009 May-Jun; 34(3):321-7.

40. Kubo S, Yokota H, Sata Y, Hayashi Y. Microleakage of self-etching primers after thermal and flexural load cycling. Am J Dent. 2001 Jun;14(3):163.

41. Dunn W, Söderholm K. Comparison of shear and flexural bond strength tests versus failure modes of dentin bonding systems. Am J Dent. 2001 Oct; 14(5): 297.

Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Kermanshah H, Yassini E, Hoseinifar R, Mirzaei M, Pahlavan A, Hasani Tabatabaie M et al . Microleakage Evaluation of Silorane-Based Composites Versus Low Shirinkage Methacrylate-Based Composites. J Iran Dent Assoc 2013; 25 (3) :147-154
URL: http://jida.ir/article-1-1454-en.html

Rights and permissions
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Volume 25, Issue 3 (7-2013)

Back to browse issues page

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly

Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.05 seconds with 37 queries by YEKTAWEB 4645