18Sep 2017

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF MICROLEAKAGE OF FOUR DIFFERENT DIRECT RESTORATIVE MATERIALS (AMALGAM, BONDED AMALGAM, PACKABLE COMPOSITE AND PACKABLE COMPOSITE WITH FLOWABLE COMPOSITE LINER) IN CLASS II RESTORATIONS USING STEREOMICROSCOPE - AN IN-VITRO STUDY.

  • Post Graduate student, Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics ,Guru Nanak Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, 157/F Nilgunj Road, Panihati, Kolkata-700114.
  • Professor and H.O.D, Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Guru Nanak Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, 157/F Nilgunj Road, Panihati, Kolkata-700114.
  • Professor , Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics ,Guru Nanak Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, 157/F Nilgunj Road, Panihati, Kolkata-700114.
Crossref Cited-by Linking logo
  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • Cite This Article as
  • Corresponding Author

Aim: The aim of the study is to compare the microleakage of four different direct restorative materials (amalgam, bonded amalgam, packable composite and packable composite with flowable composite liner) in class II restorations using stereomicroscope. Materials and Methods: A standardized Class II cavity preparation was made involving the proximal and occlusal surfaces. All prepared samples were randomly divided into 4 experimental groups, with 10 teeth each according to the restoration material used: Group I- Amalgam; Group II- Bonded amalgam; Group III- Packable composite (Nano-hybrid composite); Group IV- Flowable composite as a lining material with Packable composite (Nano-hybrid composite). The restored teeth were stored for 24 hours in distilled water, and thermocycled for 500 cycles between 5?C and 55?C with a dwell time of 30 seconds in each bath. Samples were immersed in 0.5% basic fuschine dye for 24 hours. The teeth were sectioned along the mesio-distal direction. The dye penetration of the occlusal and gingival margins of each section was evaluated independently by the observer using a stereo-microscope (Olympus, F. No. 19- 34/ 2008-RE). Conclusion: 1. According to the Statistical Analysis, lower microleakage scores were observed in amalgam and bonded amalgam. Higher microleakage scores were observed in nano hybrid and nano hybrid with flowable material. 2. Mean microleakage score of Group-3 (Nano hybrid) was the highest of all groups. Mean microleakage score of Group-2 (Bonded amalgam) was the lowest of all groups. 3. As per the critical differences (CD) the mean microleakage score of Group-2(Bonded amalgam) was significantly lower than that of Group-1(Amalgam), Group-3(Nano hybrid) and Group-4(Nano hybrid +Flowable) (p<0.01).


  1. T Alptekin et al (2010), In Vivo and In Vitro Evaluations of Microleakage Around Class I Amalgam and Composite Restorations, Operative Dentistry, 2010, 35-6, 641-648
  2. Ottenga ME et al (2007), Amalgam and composite posterior restorations: Curriculum versus practice in operative dentistry at a US dental school Operative Dentistry 32(5) 524-528.
  3. Morrow LA et al (2002), Microleakage of amalgam cavity treatment systems: An in vitro evaluation American Journal of Dentistry 15(4) 262- 267.
  4. Belli S et al (2001) Effect of cavity varnish, amalgam liner or dentin bonding agents on the marginal leakage of amalgam restorations Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 28(5) 492-496.
  5. Gaengler P et al (2001) Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: The 10-year report The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 3(2) 185-194.
  6. Powers JM et al (2008) Dental Materials Properties and Manipulations Mosby Elsevier, St Louis.
  7. Amin WM (2006) Comparative study of the sealing efficacy of various bonding systems to Class V dental amalgam restorations International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 26(3) 145-150.
  8. Muniz M et al (2005) Bonded amalgam restorations: Microleakage and tensile bond strength evaluation Operative Dentistry 30(2) 228- 233.
  9. Da Silva AF et al (2006) Microleakage in conventional and bonded amalgam restorations: Influence of cavity volume Operative Dentistry 31(3) 377-383.
  10. Textbook of Operative Dentistry, Vimal K Sikri, Fourth Edition
  11. Kishore Kumar Majety et al (2011) In vitro evaluation of microleakage of class II packable composite resin restorations using flowable composite and resin modified glass ionomers as intermediate layers 2011 Oct Dec; 14(4): 414?417.

[Neelanjana Majumdar, Paromita Mazumdar and Utpal Kumar Das. (2017); COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF MICROLEAKAGE OF FOUR DIFFERENT DIRECT RESTORATIVE MATERIALS (AMALGAM, BONDED AMALGAM, PACKABLE COMPOSITE AND PACKABLE COMPOSITE WITH FLOWABLE COMPOSITE LINER) IN CLASS II RESTORATIONS USING STEREOMICROSCOPE - AN IN-VITRO STUDY. Int. J. of Adv. Res. 5 (Sep). 797-804] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com


Neelanjana Majumdar
1. Post Graduate student, Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics ,Guru Nanak Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, 157/F Nilgunj Road, Panihati, Kolkata-700114.

DOI:


Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/5390      
DOI URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/5390