مجله دانشکده دندان‌پزشکی اصفهان

مقایسه‌ی میزان ریزنشت لبه‌ای در ترمیم‌های کلاس II رزین کامپوزیت در دو روش Open Sandwich و Snowplow

نوع مقاله : Original Articles

چکیده

مقدمه: انطباق کامپوزیت‌های خلفی به دیواره‌های دندان به دلایل مختلف از جمله انقباض ناشی از پلیمریزاسیون مورد سؤال است. به همین دلیل در مطالعه‌ی حاضر، ریزنشت در روش‌های مختلف ترمیم کامپوزیت کلاس II بررسی شد.
مواد و روش‌ها: در این مطالعه‌ی آزمایشگاهی که در سال 1396 و در دانشکده‌ی دندان‌پزشکی زنجان انجام شد، حفرات کلاس II بر روی 64 دندان پرمولر با مارجین جینجیوالی mm 1 زیر CEJ (Cementoenamel junction) تهیه و دندان‌ها به صورت تصادفی به دو گروه تقسیم شدند. گروه اول (ساندویچ باز): گلاس آینومر تزریقی در کف حفره قرار داده و سپس حفره با کامپوزیت به صورت لایه لایه ترمیم شد. گروه دوم (Snowplow): کامپوزیت سیال در کف حفره قرار داده و با اولین لایه از رزین کامپوزیت به طور همزمان کیور شد. مابقی حفره، مشابه گروه اول ترمیم گردید. جهت ارزیابی ریزنشت، دندان‌ها بعد از 3000 مرتبه سیکل حرارتی، 72 ساعت در محلول متیلن بلو 1 درصد قرار گرفتند. سپس به صورت مزیودیستالی برش داده و با استریومیکروسکوپ بررسی شدند. آنالیز آماری با استفاده از آزمون‌های Mann-Whitney و Fisher's exact test انجام و سطح معنی‌داری کمتر از 0/05 در نظر گرفته شد.
یافته‌ها: میانگین میزان ریزنشت در گروه اول (μm 494/04 ± 795/76) کمتر از گروه دوم (μm 457/83 ± 972/99) بود اما نتایج از نظر آماری معنی‌دار نبود (0/117 = value p).
نتیجه‌گیری: به نظر می‌رسد، میزان ریزنشت در هنگام استفاده از روش ساندویچ باز و روش Snowplow مشابه بوده و از هر دو روش می‌توان استفاده نمود.
واژه‌های کلیدی: لیکیج دندانی، کامپوزیت سیال، سمان گلاس آینومر.

عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of Marginal Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations Using Open Sandwich and Snowplow Techniques

چکیده [English]

Introduction: Adaptation of posterior composites to dental walls has been questioned for various reasons and polymerization shrinkage is one example. Thus, the present study investigated microleakage ocurring from different class II composite restorations techniques.
Materials and Methods: In this in-vitro study class II cavities with cervical margins 1 mm below the CEJ (Cementoenamel junction) were prepared in 64 extracted human premolars. The teeth were randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 (open sandwich): Glass ionomer was injected on the floor of the cavity and the rest of the cavity was restored using composite resin using incremental technique. Group 2 (Snowplow) one layer of flowable composite was placed in the bottom of the cavity and was co-cured with the first layer of composite resin. The rest of the cavity was restored the same as group 1. To evaluate the microleakage, the specimens were thermocycled for up to 3000 cycles and immersed in 1% methylene blue solution for 72 hours. Then they were sectioned mesiodistally and evaluated under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed via Mann-Whitney and Fisher's exact test and p value < 0.05 was considered significant.
Results: The mean value for microleakage in group 1 (795.74 ± 494.04 mμ) was lower than group 2 (972.99 ± 457.8 mμ), but the results were not statistically significant (p value = 0.117).
Conclusion: It appears that microleakage in both open sandwich technique and Snowplow technique did not portray statistical significance, so both of them can be used.
Keywords: Dental leakage, Flowable composite, Glass Ionomer Cements.

1. Oliveira MT, Constantino HV, Molina GO, Milioli E, Ghizoni JS, Pereira JR. Evaluation of mercury contamination in patients and water during amalgam removal. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014; 15(2): 165-8.
2. Rasines Alcaraz MG, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Davis D, Iheozor-Ejiofor Z. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (3): CD005620.
3. Bausch JR, de Lange K, Davidson CL, Peters A, de Gee AJ. Clinical significance of polymerization shrinkage of composite resins. J Prosthet Dent 1982; 48(1): 59-67.
4. Sawani S, Arora V, Jaiswal S, Nikhil V. Comparative evaluation of microleakage in Class II restorations using open vs. closed centripetal build-up techniques with different lining materials. J Conserv Dent 2014; 17(4): 344-8.
5. Krifka S, Federlin M, Hiller KA, Schmalz G. Microleakage of silorane- and methacrylate-based class V composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig 2012; 16(4): 1117-24.
6. Radhika M, Sajjan GS, Kumaraswamy BN, Mittal N. Effect of different placement techniques on marginal microleakage of deep class II cavities restored with two composite resin formulations. J Conserv Dent 2010; 13(1): 9-15.
7. Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Complete marginal seal of Class V resin composite restorations affected by increased flexibility. J Dent Res 1990; 69(6): 1240-3.
8. Joyce LJ, Captain N, Cook B. Packable resin composites. Clinical Update 2001; 9: 520-5.
9. Kasraei S, Azarsina M, Majidi S. In vitro comparison of microleakage of posterior composites with and without liner using two step etch and reines and self-etch dentin adhesive system. Oper Dent 2011; 36(2): 213-21.
10. Chuang SF, Jin YT, Liu JK, Chang CH, Shieh DB. Influence of flowable composite lining thickness on class II composite restorations. Oper Dent 2004; 29(3): 301-8.
11. Bona AD, Pinzetta C, Rosa V. Effect of acid etching of glass ionomer cement surface on the microleakage of sandwich restorations. J Appl Oral Sci 2007; 15(3): 230-4.
12. de Munck J, van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 2005; 84(2): 118-32.
13. Abd El Halim S, Zaki D. Comparative evaluation of microleakage among three different glass ionomer types. Oper Dent 2011; 36(1): 36-42.
14. Heymann H, Swift E, Ritter A. Sturdevant's art and science of operative dentistry. 6th ed. Missouri, US: Mosby; 2012.
15. Besnault C, Attal JP. Simulated oral environment and microleakage of class II resin-based composite and sandwich restorations. Am J Dent 2003; 16(3): 186-90.
16. Singh P, Tyagi S, Mahendra M, Diwedi V. Evaluation of microleakage in class V composite restoration by using flowable composite and resin modified glass ionomer as liners. JAMDSR 2020; 8(5): 26-30.
17. Oliveira LC, Duarte Jr S, Araujo CA, Abrahao A. Effect of low-elastic modulus liner and base as stress absorbing layer in composite resin restorations. Dent Mater 2010; 26(3): 159-69.
18. Lotfi N, Esmaeili B, Ahmadizenouz G, Bijani A, Khadem H. Gingival microleakage in class II composite restorations using different flowable composites as liner: an in vitro evaluation. Caspian J Dent Res 2015; 4(1): 10-6.
19. Simi B, Suprabha B. Evaluation of microleakage in posterior nanocomposite restorations with adhesive liners. J Conserv Dent 2011; 14(2): 178-81.
20. Al-Azzawi HJ, Al-Hyali NA, Al-Dabbagh FJ. Microleakage of class II packable resin composite lined with flowable composite and resin modified glass ionomer cement: An in vitro study. J Bagh Coll Dentistry 2012; 24(1): 6-10.
21. Aydın B, Pamir T, Baltaci A, Orman MN, Turk T. Effect of storage solutions on microhardness of crown enamel and dentin. Eur J Dent 2015; 9(2): 262-6.
22. Bonilla ED, Stevenson RG, Caputo AA, White SN. Microleakage resistance of minimally invasive Class I flowable composite restorations. Oper Dent 2012; 37(3): 290-8.
23. Pahlavan A, Ghavam M, Arami S, Yasini E, Mirzaie M, Kermanshah H, et al. Effect of flowable composite on microleakage of condensable composite restorations. JDM 2008; 21(1): 46-50. [In Persian].
24. Esmaeili B, Bazazi A, Bijani A. In vitro evaluation of different liners in microleakage of class II posterior composite restorations. JDM 2012; 25(3): 174-81. [In Persian].
25. Tabatabaei SH, Tamandi M, Naebi M. Evaluating Microleakage of class II Composite Resin Restorations through various restorative approaches-An Invitro study. Sch J App Med Sci 2017; 5(6D): 2330-6.
26. Rekha CV, Varma B, Jayanthi. Comparative evaluation of tensile bond strength and microleakage of conventional glass ionomer cement, resin modified glass ionomer cement and compomer: an in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 2012; 3(3): 282-7.
27. Bore Gowda V, Sreenivasa Murthy BV, Hegde S, Venkataramanaswamy SD, Pai VS, Krishna R. Evaluation of gingival microleakage in class II composite restorations with different lining techniques: An in vitro study. Scientifica (Cairo) 2015; 2015: 896507.
28. Borouziniat A, Khaki H, Majidinia S. Retrospective evaluation of the clinical performance of direct composite restorations using the snow-plow technique: Up to 4 years follow-up. J Clin Exp Dent 2019; 11(11): e964- e968.
29. Patil BS, Kamatagi L, Saojii H, Chabbra N, Mutsaddi S. Cervical microleakage in giomer restorations: An in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21(2): 161-5.
30. Al-Agha EI, Alagha MI. Nanoleakage of class V resin restorations using two nanofilled adhesive systems. J Int Oral Health 2015; 7(7): 6-11.
31. Rodrigues Junior SA, da Silva Pin LF, Machado G, Della Bona A, Demarco FF. Influence of different restorative techniques on marginal seal of class II composite restorations. J Appl Oral Sci 2010; 18(1): 37-43.
32. Moazzami S, Sarabi N, Hajizadeh H, Majidinia S, Li Y, Meharry M, et al. Efficacy of four lining materials in sandwich technique to reduce microleakage in class II composite resin restorations. Oper Dent 2014; 39(3): 256-63.
33. Moradian H, Jafarian S. Comparison of microleakage of encapsulated and hand-mixed glass ionomer in class V restorations in deciduous teeth. Avicenna J Dent Res 2014; 6(2): 64-7.
مجله دانشکده دندان‌پزشکی اصفهان
دوره 17، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 4
دی 1399
صفحه 393-404