Skip to content
Research Article Open access CC BY 4.0

Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Three Different Restorative Materials (Cention N, Zirconomer Improved and Glass Hybrid Restorative System) in Class V Cavity Restoration Using Stereomicroscope: In vitro Study

S. Dhivya, A. Vasanthakumari, A. Selvabalaji, S. Preethi Archana, C. Anagha, K. Kumar

Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International · pp. 34–42 · Published 17 Feb 2022

10.9734/jpri/2022/v34i12A35549

Abstract

Aim and Objective: Microleakage is the most important factor responsible for the destruction of restoration margins. The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate the microleakage of three different restorative materials namely glass hybrid restorative system, zirconomer improved and Cention N under stereomicroscope. Materials and Methods: In this in-vitro experimental study, 45 Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surface of maxillary premolars. The prepared cavities were divided into three groups for restoration with Cention N(group I), Zirconomer Improved(group II), Equiaforte (group III). All the samples were thermocycled for 500 cycles between 5-55°C initially and then immersed in 0.5% methylene blue for 24 hours before sectioning. All the sectioned samples were observed for microleakage under a stereomicroscope. Results: Data was analyzed using one way ANOVA test for comparison between three groups and the result revealed statistically significant difference between the groups(p<0.05). Post hoc Tukey test was used for intergroup comparison and it was observed that both Cention and Equiaforte are inferior to Zirconomer improved in terms of microleakage (p<0.05). Conclusion: Zirconomer improved exhibited lower microleakage when compared to Cention N and Equiaforte cements.

Cention N equiaforte microleakage zirconomer improved

References (23)

  1. 1 A Critical Review of the Durability of Adhesion to Tooth Tissue: Methods and Results [DOI]
  2. 2 Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations [DOI]
  3. 3 An Overview of Reasons for the Placement and Replacement of Restorations [DOI]
  4. 4 Polymerization Shrinkage and Depth of Cure of Bulk-Fill Resin Composites and Highly Filled Flowable Resin [DOI]
  5. 5 Effect of bulk/incremental fill on internal gap formation of bulk-fill composites [DOI]
  6. 6 Marginal quality and microleakage of adhesive class V restorations [DOI]
  7. 7 In Vitro Comparison of Microleakage of Posterior Resin Composites With and Without Liner Using Two-Step Etch-and-Rinse and Self-etch Dentin Adhesive Systems [DOI]
  8. 8 An in vitro Evaluation of Microleakage of Posterior Teeth Restored with Amalgam, Composite and Zirconomer – A Stereomicroscopic Study [DOI]
  9. 9 A comparative evaluation of microleakage and compressive strength of Ketac Molar, Giomer, Zirconomer, and Ceram-x: An in vitro study [DOI]
  10. 10 Glassionomer cement for permanent dental restorations: a 48-months, multi-centre, prospective clinical trial [DOI]
  11. 11 Effect of insertion technique on microleakage in mesio-occlusodistal composite resin restorations.
  12. 12 Three different methods to evaluate microleakage of packable composites in Class II restorations.
  13. 13 Comparative evaluation of microleakage of fifth, sixth, and seventh generation dentin bonding agents: An in vitro study [DOI]
  14. 14 Micro-CT evaluation of microleakage under orthodontic ceramic brackets bonded with different bonding techniques and adhesives [DOI]
  15. 15 Microbial microleakage assessment of class V cavities restored with different materials and techniques: A laboratory study [DOI]
  16. 16 Comparative evaluation of microleakage in Class V cavities restored with giomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, zirconomer and nano-ionomer: An In vitro study [DOI]
  17. 17 Response of the dental pulp to invasion of bacteria around three filling materials.
  18. 18 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF MICROLEAKAGE IN ALKASITE AND GLASS-HYBRID RESTORATIVE SYSTEM: AN IN-VITRO [DOI]
  19. 19 The survival of Class V restorations in general dental practice. Part 1, baseline data [DOI]
  20. 20 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF MICROLEAKAGE AND COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF GLASS IONOMER CEMENT TYPE IX, ZIRCONOMER IMPROVED AND CENTION N - AN IN VITRO STUDY. [DOI]
  21. 21 The effect of thermocycling on the determination of microleakage in permite amalgam restorations : scientific
  22. 22 International Journal of Current Research [DOI]
  23. 23 International Journal of Research -GRANTHAALAYAH [DOI]

Cited by 9

Microleakage of class V cavities restored by using different glass ionomer cements

Sarah Mohamed Marzouk Moaty, Magda E. Shalaby, Eman A.E.G. Shebl · Tanta Dental Journal · 2025

Comparison of root end sealing ability of three retrograde filling materials in teeth with root apices resected at 900 using dye penetration method under fluorescent microscope

Dr. Payal Chaudhari, Manoj Chandak, Dr. Aditya Patel · F1000Research · 2023

Evaluation of the Effect of Nanographene Oxide on Microleakage of Conventional and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer

Farahnaz Sharafeddin, Parisa Ghodrati · International Journal of Dentistry · 2023

Comparative Evaluation of the Fluoride Releasing Ability and Microbial Attachment of Glass-Hybrid Restorative Material

MinKi Choi, Howon Park, Siyoung Lee · THE JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN ACADEMY OF PEDTATRIC DENTISTRY · 2024

Showing 4 of 9 known citations — external sources report more than can currently be individually listed.

Related research

Article metrics

Real usage data collected on this platform.

17

Page views

0

PDF downloads

1

Outbound clicks

9

Citations

Views over time

Views by country

Approximate, from request IP at view time — not citizenship or institution. Countries with fewer than 5 views are grouped as "Other".

Traffic sources

Referring site, by host.

Views and downloads exclude known bots/crawlers. Citations combines this platform's own DOI-resolved index with each external source's own reported total — see Cited by above for individually listed citing works. Last refreshed 0 seconds ago.