COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF GINGIVAL MICROLEAKAGE BETWEEN 7TH AND 8TH GENERATION BONDING AGENTS IN CLASS II COMPOSITE RESTORATION: AN IN- VITRO STUDY
Dr. Shruti Mishra*, Dr. Pradnya Nikhade, Dr. Gopal Tawani, Dr. Manoj Chandak and Dr. Rutuja Gawarle
ABSTRACT
Aim: To compare gingival microleakage in deep class II cavity with or without using flowable composite and two generations of self-etch dentin bonding agents. Settings and Design: Study was carried out in Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital. Methods and Material: 60 freshly extracted premolars were taken. Class II box type cavity was prepared on each tooth. All samples were randomly divided into four groups (n=15). Group I (Single Bond Universal, 3M ESPE+ 3M ESPE Filtek Z250), Group II (Single Bond Universal, 3M ESPE+3M ESPE Filtek Z350+3M ESPE Filtek Z250), Group III (FuturaBond DC, Voco America+3M ESPE Filtek Z250), Group IV (FuturaBond DC, Voco America+3M ESPE Filtek Z350+3M ESPE Filtek Z250) were restored respectively. The samples were immersed in Silver nitrate solution and microleakage scores were recorded with Stereomicroscope (32X). Statistical analysis: Mean value of microleakage was calculated using Chi Square test. Results: Group I when compared with group II, 11 samples with flowable liner and 4 samples of without liner had no microleakage. Group III when compared with group IV, 13 samples with flowable liner and 9 samples of without flowable liner had no microleakage. Group I when compared with group III, 9 samples of 8th generation and 5 samples of 7th generation had no microleakage. Group II when compared with Group IV, 13 samples of 8th generation and 8 samples of 7th generation had no microleakage. Conclusion: 8th generation bonding agent showed least microleakage. Also, flowable liner has positive influence in reduction of gingival microleakage in both generations.
Keywords: Deep class II cavity, Microleakage, Self-etch bonding agents.
[Full Text Article]
[Download Certificate]
Impact Factor : 8.181 
