Comparison of Micro leakage Evaluation of Direct Composite Restoration and Direct Composite Inlay System: An in-vitro Study
Background: The use of composite inlay techniques has proved to be an elegant approach to improve the marginal seal and adaptation of esthetic posterior restorations by greatly restricting the volume of composite resin to be simultaneously cured and bonded to tooth. Aims & Objectives: To compare the micro leakage of direct composite restorations with direct composite inlay restorations in Class II cavities at the cervical margin. Materials & Methods: Forty whole extracted molars were collected and stored in water at room temperature. Class II cavity preparations were prepared and restored with direct composite technique in twenty teeth and direct inlay technique in remaining teeth. Specimens were thermocycled and immersed in 0.5% basic fuschin dye. Teeth were then sectioned and evaluated for dye penetration using a stereomicroscope at 16X magnification. The data was analysed using Mann-Whitney test. Results: Direct restorative group showed greater amount of leakage there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Conclusion: By using composite inlay, adaptation and bonding of composite to dentine can be improved.
Beznos C. Microleakage at the cervical margin of composite Class II cavities with different restorative techniques. Operative Dentistry. 2001;26(1):60-9.
Van Dijken J, Hörstedt P. Marginal breakdown of 5-year-old direct composite inlays. Journal of Dentistry. 1996;24(6):389-94.
Ziskind D, Elbaz B, Hirschfeld Z, Rosen L. Amalgam alternatives–microleakage evaluation of clinical procedures. Part II: direct/indirect composite inlay systems. Journal of oral rehabilitation. 1998;25(7):502-6.
Razak A, Harrison A. The optimum curing cycle for a light and heat cured composite inlay material. Journal of OalRrehabilitation. 1997;24(4):297-302.
Milleding P. Microleakage of indirect composite inlays: an in vitro comparison with the direct technique. Acta Odontologica. 1992;50(5):295-301.
Liberman R, Benamar A, Herteanu L, Judes H. Marginal seal of composite inlays using different polymerization techniques. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 1997;24(1):26-9.
Gaikwad A. Reinforcing esthetic with fiber post. International Journal of Dental Clinics. 2011;3(2):89-90.
Saha MK, Saha SG. Restoration of anterior teeth with direct composite veneers in Amelogenesis Imperfecta. International Journal of Dental Clinics. 2011;3(2):99-100.
Dionysopoulos P, Watts D. Dynamic mechanical properties of an inlay composite. Journal of Dentistry. 1989;17(3):140-4.
Van Dijken J. Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an 11 year follow-up. Journal of Dentistry. 2000;28(5):299-306.
Kidd EAM. Microleakage: a review. Journal of Dentistry. 1976;4(5):199-206.
Burke F, Watts D, Wilson N, Wilson M. Current status and rationale for composite inlays and onlays. British dental journal. 1991;170(7):269-73.
Wendt Jr S. The effect of heat used as secondary cure upon the physical properties of three composite resins. II. Wear, hardness, and color stability. Quintessence Int. 1987;18(5):351-6.
Dietschi D, Scampa U, Campanile G, Holz J. Marginal adaptation and seal of direct and indirect Class II composite resin restorations: An in vitro evaluation. Quintessence Int. 1995;26(2):127-38.
Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Manhart J, Kremers L, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R. Two-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 1999;82(4):391-7.
Bergmann P, Noack M, Roulet J. Marginal adaptation with glass-ceramic inlays adhesively luted with glycerine gel. Quintessence Int. 1991;22(9):739-44.
- There are currently no refbacks.
|Published by Celesta Software Pvt Ltd|