The effect of fiber placement or flowable resin lining on microleakage in Class II adhesive restorations.

Department of Endodontics, Selçuk University, Faculty of Dentistry, Konya, Turkey.
The journal of adhesive dentistry (Impact Factor: 1.44). 04/2007; 9(2):175-81.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of two fibers (polyethylene or glass) and a flowable resin liner on microleakage in Class II adhesive restorations.
Class II adhesive cavities were prepared on mesial and distal surfaces of 40 extracted sound human molars. The cavity margins were below or above the CEJ. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups according to the restoration technique: group 1: restored with a resin composite (AP-X, Kuraray) in bulk after SE Bond (Kuraray) treatment; group 2: flowable resin liner (Protect Liner F, Kuraray) was used before composite restoration; in group 3, a polyethylene fiber (Ribbond) and in group 4, a glass fiber (everStick NET, StickTech) was placed into the bed of flowable resin before composite restoration. Samples were finished, stored in distilled water for 7 days at room temperature, and then thermocycled for 300 cycles between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C. After sealing the apices, the teeth were varnished within 1 mm of the margins and placed in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye for 24 h at 37 degrees C. After rinsing, the teeth were sectioned longitudinally through the restorations and microleakage was evaluated with a stereomicroscope. Marginal penetration was scored on a 0 to 4 scale, and the data were statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and the Mann-Whitney U-test.
Flowable resin, everStick NET, and Ribbond THM used in combination with flowable resin significantly reduced leakage at occlusal margins in cavities with enamel margins (p < 0.05). When the leakage values on cervical dentin margins were evaluated, there was no statistically significant difference among the tested groups (p > 0.05).
Use of flowable composite alone or in combination with polyethylene or glass fibers reduces occlusal leakage in Class II adhesive cavities with enamel margins.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage of direct restorative composite resin upon the addition of an intermediate glass fiber-reinforced composite (GFRC) layer of various fiber orientations between tooth and particulate filler composite resin (PFRC). Cavities were prepared both on the mesial and distal surfaces of sixty extracted human molars with one margin placed below and the other above the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). Teeth were assigned to five different groups. Four of the groups received a layer of semi-interpenetrating polymer network (semi-IPN) resin system impregnated E-glass GFRC at the bottom of the cavity: Group 1; unidirectional continuous GFRC (EVS) in buccolingual direction (EVS-BL), Group 2; EVS in mesiodistal direction (EVS-MD), Group 3; bidirectional woven GFRC (EVN), Group 4; multidirectional short GFRC (EXP-MLT), Group 5; PRFC only (control). After acid etching and priming of the cavities and insertion of GFRC layer with the adhesive resin (Scotchbond Multipurpose 3M-ESPE), the cavities were filled incrementally with PRFC (Filtek Z250, 3M-ESPE) and each layer was light cured for 20 s. After finishing and polishing, the restored teeth were water-stored for 24 h at 37 °C and then thermocycled for 6000 cycles between 5-55 °C, before immersion in 0.5 % basic fuchsin dye for 24 h. After sectioning by 3-5 sagittal cuts, each sequential section was imaged and digitally analyzed to determine the stain depth. All GFRC groups in dentin revealed significantly lower microleakage compared to control (p<0.05). The orientation of FRC intermediate layer did not reveal significant differences in microleakage (p>0.05). The microleakeage in enamel was not different between the groups (p>0.05). Use of intermediate GFRC layer between tooth and PFRC could provide alternative method to minimize microleakage. Use of GFRC intermediate layer underneath the particulate filler composite can be used to minimize the leakeage of the restorations.
    The Open Dentistry Journal 11/2014; 8:213-9. DOI:10.2174/1874210601408010213
  • Source
    12/2013; 1(1):8-15. DOI:10.12974/2311-8695.2013.01.01.2
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Statement of Problem: Microleakage is one of the most frequent problems associated with resin composites, especially at the gingival margin of posterior restorations. Insertion of fibers in composite restorations can reduce the total amount of composite and help to decrease the shrinkage. Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of polyethylene fiber inserts on gingival microleakage of class II composite restorations using two different adhesive systems. Materials and Method: In this experimental study, class II cavities were prepared on 60 premolars. The gingival floor was located 1.0 mm below the CEJ. Dimension of each cavity were 3 mm buccolingually and 1.5 mm in axial depth. The specimens were divided into 4 groups according to the adhesive type and fiber insert (n=4). Single bond and Clearfill SE bond and Filtek p60 were used to restore the cavities. In groups without fiber inserts composite was adapted onto cavities using layering technique. For cavities with fiber inserts, 3 mm piece of fiber insert was placed onto the composite increment and cured. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37(o)C for 6 months. All specimens were subjected to 3000 thermo-cycling. The tooth surfaces except for 1 mm around the restoration margins covered with two layers of nail varnish .The teeth were immersed in 2% Basic Fuchsin for 24 hours, then rinsed and sectioned mesiodistally. The microleakage was determined under a stereomicroscope (40X). Data were statistically analyzed by Kruskal-wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (p< 0.05). Results: The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed no significant differences in mean microleakage scores among all groups (p= 0.281). Conclusion: Use of polyethylene fiber inserts and etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives had no effect on microleakage in class II resin composite restorations with gingival margins below the CEJ after 6- month water storage.
    09/2013; 14(3):90-95.