Influence of Location of the Gingival Margin on the Microleakage and Internal Voids of Nanocomposites

JOURNAL TITLE: The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Author
1. Yonca Korkmaz
2. Emre Ozel
3. Nuray Attar
ISSN
DOI
10.5005/jcdp-9-7-65
Volume
9
Issue
7
Publishing Year
2008
Pages
8
Author Affiliations
    1. Dr. Ozel is a Research Assistant in the Department of Operative Dentistry of the Faculty of Dentistry at Yeditepe University in Istanbul, Turkey. He graduated from the Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry in 1999 and earned his MSc degree from the Faculty of Dentistry at Yeditepe University in 2003 where he is currently a doctoral student.
    1. Dr. Korkmaz is a Research Assistant in the Department of Restorative Dentistry of the School of Dentistry at Hacettepe University in Ankara, Turkey. Her primary subjects of interest are dental materials, dentin bonding, and root caries.
    1. Dr. Attar is an Associate Professor in the Department of Conservative Dentistry of the Faculty of Dentistry at the University of hacettepe in Ankara, Turkey. Her fields of special interest include caries prevention, application concepts of preventive dentistry, esthetic dentistry and dental materials. e-mail: nurayattar@hotmail.com
  • Article keywords

    Abstract

    Aim

    The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the cervical microleakage and internal voids of nanocomposites comparing them with a hybrid composite in Class II restorations with the margins located coronal and apical to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ).

    Methods and Materials

    Standardized MOD cavities (one cervical margin located in dentin, one in enamel) were prepared in 40 extracted human molars and divided into four groups according to the composite used to restore them (n=10/group). Group 1: Adper Single Bond2/Filtek Supreme XT; Group 2: Excite/Tetric EvoCeram; Group 3: Prime & BondNT/Ceram X; and Group 4 (control) Adper Single Bond2/Filtek Z250. Groups were further divided into subgroups A and B. The “A” subgroups represent the level of the location of the cervial margin at 1 mm coronal to the CEJ, and the “B” subgroups represent the level of the cervical margin located 1 mm apical to the CEJ. After restoration of the cavities with nanocomposites, thermocycling, and immersion in 0.5% basic fuchsin, the dye penetration and internal voids were evaluated under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests with the Bonferroni correction for microleakage and with the Chi-square test for internal voids (p<0.05).

    Results

    The microleakage in the A subgroups was statistically significantly lower then B subgroups (p<0.05). No statistically significant difference was observed in terms of interface, cervical, and occlusal voids for all groups (p>0.05). No significant difference was observed between each group for three voids in all groups (p>0.05).

    Conclusion

    The location of the gingival margin affects the microleakage of nanocomposites but has no significant affect on the internal voids.

    Clinical Significance

    Gingival margin located 1 mm coronal to the CEJ provided a reduction in cervical microleakage in nanocomposite restorations.

    Citation

    Ozel E, Korkmaz Y, Attar N. Influence of Location of the Gingival Margin on the Microleakage and Internal Voids of Nanocomposites. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 November; (9)7:065-072.

    © 2019 Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.   |   All Rights Reserved