Background: Microleakage may cause tooth sensitivity, secondary caries, discoloration and even failure of the restoration. In order to overcome these potential problems, materials that are able to bind to the tooth structure have been developed, such as composite resin and glass ionomer cement. The purpose of the study was to compare microleakage arising from amalgam (Am), composite resin (CR), glass ionomer (GI), Ketac-Silver (KS), and GI filling with banding (GI+B) when these materials are used for class II restoration of a primary molar.
Methods: Fifty primary molars were collected and class II cavities were prepared on each tooth. The teeth were randomly divided into five groups (Am, CR, GI, KS, and GI+B), each of which received a different material as part of the restoration. The restored teeth then underwent 100 cycles of thermocycling that consisted of 55°C for 30 seconds, 19°C for 20 seconds, and 5°C for 30 seconds. The teeth were then immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin solution for 24 hours. Afterwards, the teeth were embedded and sectioned mesiodistally through the center of each restoration. Dye penetration associated with the occlusal and cervical margins of each restoration was then assessed.
Results: Cervical leakage was greater than occlusal leakage in the CR, GI and KS groups (p < 0.05). When leakage on occlusal margin was examined, however, the Am group showed greater leakage than the CR, GI, and GI+B groups (p < 0.05). When leakage on the cervical margin was examined, the Am group showed greater leakage than the GI and GI+B groups, while the KS group showed greater leakage than the GI+B group (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: Restorations using GI and GI+B indicated that these materials performed better than the other materials in this study overall. However, none of the materials were entirely devoid of leakage.
Keywords: banding; class II restoration; microleakage; primary molar.
Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC.