Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation and Microleakage of Three Glass Ionomer-Based Class V Restorations: In Vitro Study.
Clicks: 309
ID: 72932
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
72.9
/100
309 views
218 readers
Trending
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #8 of 15 articles by views in european journal of dentistry
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the marginal adaptation and microleakage of class V cavities restored with conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), and bioactive ionic resin (BIR) restorative materials after 6 months of water storage.One hundred twenty standardized class V cavities (2 mm deep, 4 mm in width, and 3 mm in height) were prepared in sound extracted human molar teeth, where the coronal margins were in enamel while the cervical margins were in dentin. Three glass ionomer-based restorations were tested ( = 40): GIC (Equia Fil), RMGI (Fuji II LC), and BIR (ACTIVA Bioactive Restorative). Half of the teeth from each group ( = 20) were evaluated for their marginal adaptation with scanning electron microscopy and the other half submitted to dye penetration test to examine microleakage. Further division for each subgroup ( = 10) occurred to be tested immediately, while the remaining teeth were examined after keeping for 6 months and thermocycling.The outcomes were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests.No statistically significant differences were observed among the three studied restorative materials. However, the differences were statistically significant in microleakage test between enamel and dentin and after water aging.All tested restorative materials exhibited the same marginal adaptation and microleakage. Dentin substrate revealed greater microleakage than enamel, especially with BIR restorative material. Water aging had a negative effect on RMGI with respect to microleakage.
| Reference Key |
ebaya2019evaluationeuropean
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Ebaya, Maha M;Ali, Ashraf I;Mahmoud, Salah H; |
| Journal | european journal of dentistry |
| Year | 2019 |
| DOI |
10.1055/s-0039-3401435
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.