Evaluation of microlekage of class v cavities prepared by using different type cavite preparation method by restorated with different glass ionomer cements

Abstract

Aim: The aim of study to evaluate both occlusal and gingival microleakage levels of class V cavıties prepared by using different type cavite preparation method and by restorated with different glass ionomer cements.

Material and Methods: In this study were used molar teeth (n = 90) which were planned to for extraction due to orthodontic or periodontal and which did not contain any caries, restorations and cracks. Standard class V-cavities were prepared at the buccal surface of each tooth to be 3 mm wide, 2 mm high and 1.5 mm deep. Teeth were divided into 3 main groups (n = 30) according to cavitation preparation method (Er:YAG laser, Er,Cr:YSGG laser and conventional method) and these groups were divided into 3 subgroups (n = 10) according to the restorative material. Samples were examined in stereomicroscopy at X16 magnification and SEM. Datas were analyzed using with statistically evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests at 5% significiant level.

Results: In both SEM and microscopy groups, the gingival margin showed more leakage than the occlusal margin. There was a statistically significant difference (p <0.05) between the cavity preparation methods in both SEM and microscope.

Conclusion: Although the rate of microleakage of the cavity preparation and the material used the most dense microleakage is seen in the gingival region. The Er:YAG laser method is predicted to be an alternative to the conventional method.

Keywords

• microleakage,Er:YAG laser,glass ionomer cement

Farklı kavite preparasyon yöntemi kullanılarak prepare edilen sınıf V kavitelerinin farklı cam iyonomer simanlarla restore edilerek mikrosızıntısının değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı; farklı kavite preparasyon tekniği kullanılarak prepare edilen sınıf V kavitelerin, cam iyonomer materyali ile restorasyonu sonrası okluzal ve gingival bölge de oluşan mikrosızıntı seviyelerini belirlemektir.

Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışmada; ortodontik veya periodontal sebeplerle çekilmiş ve herhangi bir çürük, restorasyon ya da yapısal bir bozulma olmayanlar molar dişler (n:90) kullanılmıştır. Her bir dişin bukkal yüzeyinde standart sınıf V kaviteler 3 mm genişliğinde, 2 mm yüksekliğinde ve 1,5 mm derinliğinde olacak şekilde açılmıştır. Kavite preparasyon tekniğine (Er:YAG lazer, Er,Cr:YSGG lazer ve konvansiyonel yöntem) göre 3 ana gruba (n:30) ayrılan dişler, kendi aralarında da 3 farklı ticari markalı konvansiyonel cam iyonomer siman ile restore edilerek 3 alt gruba (n:10) ayrılmıştır. Örnekler stereomikroskopta X16 büyütmede ve SEM de incelenmiştir. Veriler Kruskal-Wallis ve Wilcoxon testleri ile istatiksel olarak 0.05 anlamlılık düzeyinde değerlendirilmiştir.

Bulgular: Hem SEM hem de mikroskop ile incelenen tüm gruplarda gingival kenar, okluzal kenara göre daha fazla sızıntı göstermiştir. Kavite preparasyon yöntemleri arasında hem SEM hem de mikroskop incelemelerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark (p<0.05) bulunmuştur.

Sonuç: Kavite preparasyonu ve kullanılan materyale göre mikrosızıntı görülme oranları değişse de en yoğun mikro sızıntı gingival bölgede görülmektedir. Çalışmamızda kullanılan Er:YAG lazer yönteminin konvansiyonel yönteme alternatif olabileceği öngörülmektedir. 

Keywords

• mikrosızıntı,Er:YAG lazer,cam iyonomer siman

References

1. 1. Morabito A, Defabianis P. The marginal seal of various restorative materials in primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1996; 22: 51-54.
2. 2. Bahrololoomi Z, Razavi F, Soleymani AA. Comparison of micro-leakage from resin-modified glass ionomer restorations in cavities prepared by Er: YAG (erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet) laser and conventional method in primary teeth. J Lasers Med Sci 2014; 5: 183-87.
3. 3. Dunne S, Gainsford I, Wilson N. Current materials and techniques for direct restorations in posterior teeth: Part 1: silver amalgam. Int Dent J 1997; 47: 123-36.
4. 4. Nicholson JW. Chemistry of glass-ionomer cements: a review. Biomaterials 1998; 19: 485-94.
5. 5. Rekha CV, Balagopal Varma J. Comparative evaluation of tensile bond strength and microleakage of conventional glass ionomer cement, resin modified glass ionomer cement and compomer: An in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 2012; 3: 282-87.
6. 6. Horowitz AM. Introduction to the symposium on minimal intervention techniques for caries. J Public Health Dent 1996; 56: 133-34.
7. 7. Yip H, Samaranayake L. Caries removal techniques and instrumentation: a review. Clin Oral Investig 1998; 2: 148-54.
8. 8. Hibst R, Keller U. Experimental studies of the application of the Er: YAG laser on dental hard substances: I. Measurement of the ablation rate. Lasers Surg Med 1989; 9: 338-44.

9. 9. Keller U, Hibst R, Geurtsen W et al. Erbium: YAG laser application in caries therapy. Evaluation of patient perception and acceptance. J Dent 1998; 26: 649-56.
10. 10. Peker S, Giray FE, Durmus B, Bekiroglu N, Kargül B, Özcan M. Microleakage in class V cavities prepared using conventional method versus Er: YAG laser restored with glass ionomer cement or resin composite. J Adhes Sci Technol 2017; 31: 509-19.
11. 11. Shruthi A, Nagaveni N, Poornima P, Selvamani M, Madhushankari G, Reddy VS. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of conventional and modifications of glass ionomer cement in primary teeth: An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2015; 33: 279-84.
12. 12. Abd El Halim S, Zaki D. Comparative evaluation of microleakage among three different glass ionomer types. Oper Dent 2011; 36: 36-42.
13. 13. Alani AH, Toh CG. Detection of microleakage around dental restorations: a review. Oper Dent 1997; 22: 173-85.
14. 14. Pavuluri C, Nuvvula S, Kamatham RL, Nirmala S. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Conventional and RMGIC Restorations following Conventional and Chemomechanical Caries Removal: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2014; 7: 172-175.
15. 15. Singla T, Pandit I, Srivastava N, Gugnani N, Gupta M. An evaluation of microleakage of various glass ionomer based restorative materials in deciduous and permanent teeth: An in vitro study. Saudi Dent J 2012; 24: 35-42.
16. 16. Bader C, Krejci I. Indications and limitations of Er: YAG laser applications in dentistry. Am J Dent 2006; 19: 178-86.
17. 17. De Moor RJG, Ilse Maria Delmé K. Laser-assisted cavity preparation and adhesion to erbium-lased tooth structure: part 2. present-day adhesion to erbium-lased tooth structure in permanent teeth. J Adhes Dent 2010; 12: 91-102.
18. 18. Shahabi S, Ebrahimpour L, Walsh L. Microleakage of composite resin restorations in cervical cavities prepared by Er, Cr: YSGG laser radiation. Aust Dent J 2008; 53: 172-75.
19. 19. Ghandehari M, Mighani G, Shahabi S, Chiniforush N, Shirmohammadi Z. Comparison of microleakage of glass ionomer restoration in primary teeth prepared by Er: YAG laser and the conventional method. J Dent (Tehran, Iran) 2012; 9: 215-20.
20. 20. Gutknecht N, Apel C, Schäfer C, Lampert F. Microleakage of composite fillings in Er, Cr: YSGG laser‐prepared class II cavities. Lasers Surg Med 2001; 28: 371-74.
21. 21. Baghalian A, Nakhjavani YB, Hooshmand T, Motahhary P, Bahramian H. Microleakage of Er: YAG laser and dental bur prepared cavities in primary teeth restored with different adhesive restorative materials. Lasers Med Sci 2013; 28: 1453-60.
22. 22. Corona S, Borsatto M, Pecora J et al. Assessing microleakage of different class V restorations after Er: YAG laser and bur preparation. J Oral Rehabil 2003; 30: 1008-14.
23. 23. Quo BC, Drummond JL, Koerber A, Fadavi S, Punwani I. Glass ionomer microleakage from preparations by an Er/YAG laser or a high-speed handpiece. J Dent 2002; 30: 141-6.