IADR Abstract Archives
Effect of Different Intermediary Base on Microleakage of a Restorative Material in Class II Box of Primary Teeth
Objectives: The aim of this in vitro study was to assess and compare the effect of different intermediary base on microleakage between tooth and restoration interface in a Class II box cavities using a nanocomposite in primary teeth.
Methods: : A standard Class II box cavity were prepared in 52 primary molars and were randomly divided into nine groups according to the intermediary base used (Multicore Flow, Fuji II LC, SDR, Smart Dentin Replacement and Biodentine). Groups 1 - 4 were experimental, groups 5- 8 were negative controls and group 9 was a positive control. Filtek™ Z350 XT Universal was used as the final restoration. All specimens were subjected to thermocycling and prepared for microleakage testing. The teeth were sectioning and evaluated for microleakage.
Results: There was highly statistically significant difference in the mean ranks of microleakage among the 9 groups in gingival side (p<0.0001) and occlusal side (p<0.0001) of Class II box cavities in primary teeth. The mean ranks microleakage was statistically significantly higher with materials experimental SDR, experimental Multicore Flow and positive control when compared with the other 6 groups. There was no significant difference among these three groups. Whereas the microleakage mean ranks were statistically significantly lower in experimental Fuji II LC, experimental Biodentine and all negative control groups when compared with the other 3 groups.
Conclusions: Microleakage is affected by the application of intermediate material. Experimental Biodentine and Fuji II LC showed the lowest microleakage while experimental SDR and experimental Multicore Flow showed the highest microleakage.
Methods: : A standard Class II box cavity were prepared in 52 primary molars and were randomly divided into nine groups according to the intermediary base used (Multicore Flow, Fuji II LC, SDR, Smart Dentin Replacement and Biodentine). Groups 1 - 4 were experimental, groups 5- 8 were negative controls and group 9 was a positive control. Filtek™ Z350 XT Universal was used as the final restoration. All specimens were subjected to thermocycling and prepared for microleakage testing. The teeth were sectioning and evaluated for microleakage.
Results: There was highly statistically significant difference in the mean ranks of microleakage among the 9 groups in gingival side (p<0.0001) and occlusal side (p<0.0001) of Class II box cavities in primary teeth. The mean ranks microleakage was statistically significantly higher with materials experimental SDR, experimental Multicore Flow and positive control when compared with the other 6 groups. There was no significant difference among these three groups. Whereas the microleakage mean ranks were statistically significantly lower in experimental Fuji II LC, experimental Biodentine and all negative control groups when compared with the other 3 groups.
Conclusions: Microleakage is affected by the application of intermediate material. Experimental Biodentine and Fuji II LC showed the lowest microleakage while experimental SDR and experimental Multicore Flow showed the highest microleakage.