The Effect of Different Periods of Enamel Microabrasion on the Microleakage of Class V Glass-Ionomer Restorations
Journal of Dental School,
Vol. 33 No. 4 (2015),
29 October 2015
,
Page 254-261
https://doi.org/10.22037/jds.v33i4.24697
Abstract
Objective: Removal of enamel superficial layer during microabrasion treatments may adversely affect sealing ability of the restorative materials. The aim of this study was to measure the effect of different periods of enamel microabrasion on the microleakage of class V glass-ionomer restorations.
Methods: This in vitro experimental study was conducted on 96 Class V cavities which had been prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 48 sound human premolars. After conditioning with 10% polyacrylic acid (GC, Tokyo, Japan) one half of the cavities were restored with the conventional glass-ionomer (Fuji II GC, Tokyo, Japan) and another half with resin-modified glass- ionomer (Fuji II LC GC, Tokyo, Japan). Finishing and polishing were performed after 24 hours and the teeth incubated for 2 weeks (37°C and 100% humidity).Then the teeth were classified into eight groups (n=12). Microabrasion treatment was performed with Opulster (Ultradent product Inc, South Jordan, UT, USA) in 0(control no treatment), 60, 120 and 180 seconds. Then teeth were thermocycled between 5°C-55°C (×1000), immersed in 0.5% basic-fushin solution (24h) and sectioned longitudinally in bucco-lingual direction (n=192). Dye penetration was examined with stereomicroscope (×40). Microleakage scores were statistically analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test while the paired comparisons were done using Mann-Whitney U test.
Results: The mean microleakage scores were significantly increased following increased microabrasion times in occlusal margin in FU II (p<0.009) and FU II LC (p<0.02) and in gingival margin in resin-modified glass-ionomer (p<0.04).
Conclusion: In Fuji II restorations after microabrasion in occlusal margins, microleakage increased up to 120s but in gingival margins no significant difference were seen. In Fuji II LC restorations after microabrasion in occlusal margin, microleakage from 60s up to 180s was significantly increased. In gingival margin with increasing the time up to 180s microleakage increased.- Enamel Microabrasion
- Glass-ionomer
- Microleakage
How to Cite
References
Croll TP, Helpin ML. Enamel microabrasion: a new approach. J Esthet Dent 2000;12:64-71.
Terry DA. A biomodification of tooth discoloration. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2006; 18:226, 228-229.
Chan DC, Lemke KC, Howell ML, Barghi N. The effect of microabrasion on restorative materials and tooth surface. Oper Dent 1996; 21:63-68.
Griffin RE Jr, Grower MF, Ayer WA. Effects of solutions used to treat dental fluorosis on permeability of teeth. J Endod1977;3:139-143.
Davidson CL. Advances in cements. J Appl Oral Sci 2006;14 Suppl:3-9.
Summitt JB. Fundamentals of operative dentistry: a contemporary approach. 3rdEd.Quintessence Publishing Co. 2006; Chap14: 432.
Mount G. An atlas of cements. A Clinicians’s Guide. 3rd Ed. Goodwill Industries of East Texas,
Inc. 1990;70-71.
Waggoner WF, Johnston WM, Schumann S, Schikowski E. Microabrasion of human enamel in vitro using hydrochloric acid and pumice. Pediatr Dent 1989; 11:319-323.
Tong LS, Pang MK, Mok NY, King NH, Wei SH. The effects of etching, micro-abrasion, and bleaching on surface enamel. J Dent Res 1993;72:67-71.
Dalzell DP, Howes RI, Hubler PM. Microbrasion: effect of time, number of applications, and pressure on enamel loss. Pediatr Dent 1995;17:207-211.
Train TE, McWhorter AG, Seale NS, Wilson CF, Guo IY. Examination of esthetic improvement and surface alteration following microabrasion in fluorotic human incisors in vivo. PediatrDent 1996;18:353-362.
Deliperi S, Bardwell DN, Wegley C. Restoration interface microleakage using one total-etch and three self-etch adhesives. OperDent 2007;32:179-184.
Meireles SS, Andre DdeA, Leida FL, Bocangel JS, Demarco FF. Surface roughness and enamel loss with two microabrasion techniques. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009; 10:58-65.
Matis BA,Cochran M, Carlson T. Longevity of restorative materials: results of a 10-year evaluation. Quintessence Int 1996; 27:373-382.
Davidson CL. Advances in cements.J Appl Oral Sci 2006; 14 Suppl: 3-9.
Paic M, Sener B, Schug J, Schmidlin PR. Effects of microabrasion on substance loss, surface roughness, and colorimetric changes on enamel in vitro. Quintessence Int2008; 39:517-522.
Ajamia B, Makaremb A, Niknejadc E. Microleakage of class v compomer and light-cured glass- ionomer restorations in young premolar teeth. Jourmal of Mashhad DentalSchool, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences 2007;31:25-28. [Persian]
Scherer W, Quattrone J, Chang J, David S, Vijayaraghavan T. Removal of intrinsic enamel stains with vital bleaching and modified microabrasion. Am J Dent 1991;4:99-102.
Wilson AD, McLean JW. Glass-ionomer cement. 1stEd. Quintessence Pub Co.1988; Chaps 4, 6:
-72, 83-106.
Atoui JA, Chinelatti MA, Palma-Dibb RG, Corona SAM. Microleakage in conservative cavities varying the preparation method and surface treatment. Journal of Applied Oral Science. 2010; 18: 421-425.
Yap AU, Teo JC, Teoh SH. Comparative wear resistance of reinforced Glass-ionomerrestorative materials. OperDent 2001; 26:343-348.
Attin T, Vataschki M, Hellwig E. Properties of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative materials and two polyacid-modified resin composite materials. Quintessence Int 1996;27:203-209.
de Gee A, van Duinen RN, Werner A, Davidson CL. Early and long-term wear of conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomers. JDentRes 1996;75:1613-1619.
Powis DR, Prosser HJ, Wilson AD. Long-term monitoring of microleakage of dental cements by radiochemical diffusion. J ProsthetDent 1988; 59:651-657.
Hallett KB, Garcia-Godoy F. Microleakage of resin-modified glass-ionomer cement restorations: an in vitro study. Dent Mater1993;9:306-311.
- Abstract Viewed: 185 times
- PDF Downloaded: 123 times