Comparative Microleakage Evaluation Of A Flowable Composite Versus An Injectable Glass Ionomer Cement In Class II Slot Preparations - An In Vitro Study
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Check
This present study was conducted to investigate the effect of flowable composite resin (Tetric flow) versus an injectable glass ionomer cement (Fuji II LC) on microleakage at the cavosurface margin of the proximal box of class II restorations in premolars in vitro. Thirty caries and restoration free maxillary premolars were prepared with a slot on one preoximal surface and were filled either with a bonding agent (Scotchbond Multipurpose) + Flowable composite (tetric flow), group I (15 teeth) or injectable glass ionomer cement group II (15 teeth), all teeth were then immersed in a 2% solution of basic Fuchsin dye for 24 hours to allow for dye penetration into possible existing gaps. These were then sectioned longitudinally in mesio-distal direction. The sections thus obtained were studied under a stereomicroscope to measure depth of dye penetration as an indication for marginal microleakage at the gingival cavosurface margin and scored as follows : 0 : No dye penetration, 1 : Dye penetration between the restoration and the tooth into enamel only, 2 : Dye penetration between the restoration and the tooth into enamel and dentin but not invovling the axial wall; 3 : Dye penetration between the restoration and the tooth into enamel, dentin and onto the axial wall. The results showed that Group I (tetric flow) had less microleakage scores when compared to Group II (Fuji II LC) and the difference in microleakage scores between the 2 groups was statistically significant (P<.05).
