Comparative Evaluation of the Sealing Ability of an Alkasite Restorative Material and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement in Primary Molars: An In vivo Study

M P Pooja, Y M Karuna, Arathi Rao, Ethel Suman, Srikant Natarajan, B S Suprabha, M P Pooja, Y M Karuna, Arathi Rao, Ethel Suman, Srikant Natarajan, B S Suprabha

Abstract

Background: Cention N is relatively new and an "alkasite" restorative material, indicated for direct restorations.

Aim: The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate the sealing ability of Cention N and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (GIC) when used to restore primary molars.

Methods and materials: It is a split-mouth study. Twenty children having bilateral deep dentinal caries involving primary molars requiring restoration were selected. After caries excavation under the rubber dam, samples were collected from the cavity. Restorations of the teeth were done using either resin-modified GIC (RMGIC) or Cention N. Patients were recalled after 6 weeks and the restorations done previously were removed using contra angled micromotor handpiece under rubber dam isolation. The samples were collected again. The collected samples were used to estimate the total viable count.

Statistical analysis: The pretreatment, posttreatment colony counts, and the differences between the groups were analyzed using paired t-test.

Results: No statistically significant difference was observed in the mean differences of the pre- and posttreatment colony count between alkasite restorative material and RMGIC (P = 0.056).

Conclusion: Restorations done using alkasite restorative material and RMGIC performed equally in terms of sealing ability.

Keywords: Dental restoration; glass ionomer cements; microleakage; primary teeth.

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

Copyright: © 2022 Contemporary Clinical Dentistry.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) Class II dentinal caries with respect to 75 and 85 (b) Rubber dam isolation done with respect to 75 and 85 (c) Cention N restoration done with respect to 75 and resin-modified glass ionomer cement restoration done with respect to 85
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a) Resin-modified glass ionomer cement pretreatment (b) resin-modified glass ionomer cement posttreatment
Figure 3
Figure 3
(a) Cention pretreatment (b) Cention posttreatment

References

    1. Chisini LA, Collares K, Cademartori MG, de Oliveira LJ, Conde MC, Demarco FF, et al. Restorations in primary teeth: A systematic review on survival and reasons for failures. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2018;28:123–39.
    1. Dias AG, Magno MB, Delbem AC, Cunha RF, Maia LC, Pessan JP. Clinical performance of glass ionomer cement and composite resin in Class II restorations in primary teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2018;73:1–13.
    1. Attin T, Buchalla W, Kielbassa AM, Helwig E. Curing shrinkage and volumetric changes of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. Dent Mater. 1995;11:359–62.
    1. Qvist V, Poulsen A, Teglers PT, Mjör IA. The longevity of different restorations in primary teeth. Int J Paediatr Den. 2010;20:1–7.
    1. Cehreli SB, Tirali RE, Yalcinkaya Z, Cehreli ZC. Microleakage of newly developed glass carbomer cement in primary teeth. Eur J Dent. 2013;7:15–21.
    1. Sidhu SK. Clinical evaluations of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations. Dent Mater. 2010;26:7–12.
    1. Hse KM, Leung SK, Wei SH. Resin-ionomer restorative materials for children: A review. Aust Dent J. 1999;44:1–11.
    1. Ferracane JL. Resin composite-state of the art. Dent Mater. 2011;27:29–38.
    1. Priyalakshmi S, Ranjan M. A review on marginal deterioration of composite restoration. IOSR J Dent Med Sci. 2014;13:6–9.
    1. Alonso RC, Correr GM, Cunha LG, Borges AF, Puppin-Rontani RM, Sinhoreti MA. Dye staining gap test: An alternative method for assessing marginal gap formation in composite restorations. Acta Odontol Scand. 2006;64:141–5.
    1. Samanta S, Das UK, Mitra A. Comparison of microleakage in class V cavity restored with flowable composite resin, glass ionomer cement and cention N. Imperial J Interdiscip Res. 2017;3:180–3.
    1. Kalra P, Rao A, Suman E, Shenoy R, Suprabha BS. Evaluation of conventional, protaper hand and protaper rotary instrumentation system for apical extrusion of debris, irrigants and bacteria An in vitro randomized trial. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9:e254–8.
    1. Cention N. [Last accessed on2019 Sep 04]. Available from: .
    1. Qvist V, Manscher E, Teglers PT. Resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8-year results. J Dent. 2004;32:285–94.
    1. AlHabdan AA. Review of microleakage evaluationtools. J Int Oral Health. 2017;9:141–5.
    1. Bjørndal L. Indirect pulp therapy and stepwise excavation. Pediatr Dent. 2008;30:225–9.
    1. Prabhakar AR, Dixit K, Raju OS. Microbiologic evaluation of cotton and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) tape as endodontic spacer materials in primary molars an in vivo study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2018;42:21–6.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel