Submitted: 22 Jul 2013
Accepted: 18 Nov 2013
ePublished: 18 Nov 2013
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)

J Iran Dent Assoc. 2013;25(3): 147-154.
  Abstract View: 18

Original

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

Hamid Kermanshah, Esmaeil Yassini, Raziyeh Hoseinifar*, Mansoreh Mirzaei, Ayub Pahlavan, Masomeh Hasani Tabatabaie, Sakineh Arami
*Corresponding Author: Email: r_hoseiniffar@yahoo.com

Abstract

    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 .

First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Comments
Security code


Abstract View: 19

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


PDF Download: 0

Your browser does not support the canvas element.