Journal of Oral Health and Community Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2014 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Class 2 Cavities Restored with A Nanohybrid Composite Using Three Different Increment Techniques- An in vitro Stereomicroscopic Study

V Kumar, A Devi, R Bhargava

Citation Information : Kumar V, Devi A, Bhargava R. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Class 2 Cavities Restored with A Nanohybrid Composite Using Three Different Increment Techniques- An in vitro Stereomicroscopic Study. J Oral Health Comm Dent 2014; 8 (3):143-147.

DOI: 10.5005/johcd-8-3-143

License: NA

Published Online: 01-06-2014

Copyright Statement:  NA


Abstract

Context

Purpose of the study was to compare the microleakage in class II cavities using Horizontal oblique increment (G1), Centripetal oblique increment (G2) and Oblique increment (G3), techniques

Aims

To determine ideal incremental placement technique in restoring class II cavity.

Methods and Material

Class II cavities were prepared in 45 extracted permanent molars. The teeth were restored with nanohybrid composite (Ceram X) and bonding with adhesive systems (Xeno V). Microleakage evaluated after thermocycling of the specimens.

Statistical analysis used

ANOVA test at the 0.05 level of significance.

Results

Mean microleakage score of group G1, G2 and G3 was 2.86 ± 1.43, 1.86 ± 1.65 and 2.46 ± 1.50 respectively.

Conclusions

None of the insertion techniques used in this study was able to prevent microleakage, though the lowest microleakage values were obtained when the centripetal oblique technique was used.


PDF Share
  1. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report. Quintessence Int 2003;34:418–26.
  2. Current clinical concepts for adhesive cementation of tooth-colored posterior restorations. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1998;10:47–54.
  3. Microleakage of four class II resin composite insertion techniques at intraoral temperature. Quintessence Int 1997;28:135–44.
  4. In vitro bonding effectiveness of self etch adhesives with different application techniques: a microleakage and scanning electron microscopic study. Journal of Conservative Dentistry 2011;14:258–63
  5. Marginal permeability of step self etch adhesives: Effects of double application or the application of hydrophobic layer. Journal of Conservative Dentistry 2010;13:141–44.
  6. Effect of various incremental techniques on marginal adaptation of class II composite resin restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:62–66.
  7. Marginal adaptation of class 2 adhesive restorations. Quintessence Int 2008;39:413–19.
  8. Factors involved in the development of polymerization shrinkage stress in resin composites: a systemic review. Dent Mater 2005;21:962–70.
  9. Marginal adaptation of restorative resin polymerized at a reduced rate. Scand J Dent Res 1991;99(5):440–44.
  10. The influence of different composite placement techniques on microleakage in preparations with high C- factor: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2008;11:112–16.
  11. Does an incremental filling technique reduce polymerization shrinkage stresses? J Dent Res 1996;75:871–78.
  12. The centripetal build-up for composite resin posterior restorations. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1994;6:17–23.
  13. Bonding of restorative resins to dentine promoted by aqueous mistures of aldehydes and active monomers. Intetnational Dental Journal 1985;35:160.
  14. Resisting the curing contraction with adhesive composites. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55:446–47.
  15. Comparative study of composite resin placement: centripetal buildup versus incremental technique. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2001;13:243–50.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.