In vitro Comparison of Microleakage of Nanofilled and Flowable Composites in Restoring Class V Cavities in Primary Molars

2Department of Pedodontics, Children and Adolescent Health Research Center, Faculty of Dentistry, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran

3Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran

4Dentist

Zahedan Journal of Research in Medical Sciences:Vol. 15, issue 1; e93150

Published online:Oct 05, 2012

Article type:Research Article

Received:Mar 02, 2012

Accepted:Apr 13, 2012

How to Cite:Rahil AhmadiNahid RamazaniMohammad DaryaeianSaeide NabaviIn vitro Comparison of Microleakage of Nanofilled and Flowable Composites in Restoring Class V Cavities in Primary Molars.Zahedan J Res Med Sci.15(1):e93150.

Abstract

Background : Composite resins undergo microleakage due to polymerization shrinkage particularly when located in cementum or dentin. The purpose of this study was to compare the microleakage of flowable and nanofilled composites in Class V cavities extending on to the root in primary molars.
Materials and Methods : Forty eight class V cavities in the cervical part of buccal and lingual surfaces of 24 intact mandibular second primary molars were prepared, with occlusal margins on enamel and gingival margins on cementum. After restoring cavities randomly with nanofilled or flowable composite by incremental technique, specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours, thermocycled, immersed in a basic Fuchsin solution for 24 hours and sectioned buccolingually. Microleakage was evaluated according to the depth of dye penetration along the restoration wall using a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed by Mann- Whitney U test at a significance level of 0.05.
Results : Microleakage of flowable and nanofilled composites at the cervical margin showed no statistically significant difference, however occlusal margin in nanofilled composite exhibited significantly less microleakage than flowable composite (p=0.013).
Conclusion : In contrast to occlusal margin, there was no statistically significant difference in microleakage between the 2 composites on the gingival margin. Microleakage on the gingival wall was greater compared to occlusal wall for both composites.

Keywords

Fulltext

The full text of this article is available on the PDF file.

References

1.
The References of this article are available on the PDF file.

comments