مقایسه‌ی میزان ریزنشت حفرات کلاس II ترمیم شده با کامپوزیت‌های سایلوران و متاکریلات بیس با استفاده از دوروش مختلف ترمیمی (روش ساندویچ باز، باندینگ)

Background and Objective: Polymerization shrinkage in composite resins is responsible for microleakage restoration. A recently introduced composite resin Filtek P90 is based on siloxanes and oxiranes which polymerize by cationic "ring opening" polymerization resulting in reduced polymerization shrinkage. The aim of this study was comparative evaluation of microleakage in class II cavities restored with a silorane resin composite (Filtek P90) or a methacrylate based composite (Z250) using two different techniques of total bonding and open sandwich. Materials and Methods: A class II cavity was prepared on the mesial and distal surfaces of twenty four caries-free premolars, with the gingival margin of the cavity being 1 mm under CEJ. Teeth were assigned to restorative material and operative techniques (total bonding, open Sandwich (resin composite, RMGI), to four groups of 12 cavities: I: silorane-based composite (Filtek P90) II: RMGI (Fuji II) & Filtek p90 III: methacrylate based composite (Z250) IV: RMGI & Z250. The restored teeth were examined for microleakage after thermocycling) 5-55°c) and immersion, in a basic fuchin 0.5% solution (24 hours) and sectioned with diamond disk, using stereomicroscope (20X). The degree of dye penetration was recorded and analyzed with SPSS16 and Fisher’s exact test. Results: Differences between group I with other groups were significant (P<0.01). Group III showed most microleakage in the degree of dye penetration 2. No significant difference was observed in groups II, I and IV. Conclusion: Open sandwich technique (groups I, IV) and p90 composite (total bonding) in group I showed the least microleakage. References 1- Türkün LS, Aktener BO, Ateş M. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report. Quintessence Int. 2003 34(6): 418-26. 2- Herrero AA, Yaman P, Dennison JB. Polymerization shrinkage and depth of cure of packable composites. Quintessence Int. 2005 36(1): 25-31. 3- Hilton TJ, Schwartz RS, Ferracane JL. Microleakage of four Class II resin composite insertion techniques at intraoral temperature. Quintessence Int. 1997 28(2): 135-44. 4- Bala O, Uçtasli MB, Unlü I. The leakage of Class II cavities restored with packable resin-based composites. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2003 4(4): 1-11. 5- Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Curing contraction of composites and glass-ionomer cements. J Prosthet Dent. 1988 59(3): 297-300. 6- Suliman AH, Boyer DB, Lakes RS. Polymerization shrinkage of composite resins: comparison with tooth deformation. J Prosthet Dent. 1994 71(1): 7-12. 7- Neiva IF, de Andrada MA, Baratieri LN, Montiero S, Ritter AV. An in vitro study of the effect of restorative technique on marginal leakage in posterior composites. J Oper Dent. 1998 23(6): 282-9. 8- Bagis YH, Baltacioglu IH, Kahyaogullari S. Comparing microleakage and layering methods of silorane-based resin composite in wide class II MOD cavities. Oper Dent. 2009 34(5): 578-85. 9- Chen HY, Manhart J, Hickel R, Kunzelmann KH. Polymerization contraction stress in light-cured packable composite resins. J Dent Mater. 2001 17(3): 253-9. 10- Lindberg A, van Dijken JW, Lindberg M. Nine-year evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite/resin composite open sandwich technique in Class II cavities. J Dent. 2007 35(2): 124-9. 11- Tjan AH, Bergh BH, Lidner C. Effect of various incremental techniques on the marginal adaptation of class II composite resin restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 1992 67(1): 62-6. 12- Duarte S Jr, Dinelli W, da Silva MH. Influence of resin composite insertion technique in preparations with a high C-factor. Quintessence Int. 2007 38(10): 829-35. 13- Duarte S Jr, Saad JR. Marginal adaptation of Class 2 adhesive restorations. Quintessence Int. 2008 39(5): 413-9. 14- Andersson IE, Van JW, Horstedt P. Modified class II open sandwich restorations: Evaluation of interfacial adaptation and influence of different restorative techniques. Eur J Oral Sci. 2002 110(3): 270-5. 15- Dietrich T, Lösche AC, Lösche GM, Roulet JF. Marginal adaptation of direct composite and sandwich restorations in class II cavities with cervical margins in dentine. J Dent. 1999 27(2): 119-28. 16- Al-Boni R, Raja OM. Microleakage evaluation of silorane based composite versus methacrylate based composite. J Conserv Dent. 2010 13(3): 152-5. 17- Yamazaki PC, Bedran AK, Pereira PN, Swift EJ. Microleakage evaluation of a new low-shirinkage composite restorative material. Oper Dent .2006 31(3): 670-6. 18- Palin WM, Fleming GJ, Nathwani H, Burke FJ, Randall RC. In vitro cuspal deflection and microleakage of maxillary premolars restored with novel low-shrink dental composites. Dent Mater. 2005 21(4): 324-35. 19- Ernst CP, Galler P, Willer SB, Haller B. Marginal integrity of class V restorations:SEM versus dye penetration. Dent Mater. 2008 24(3): 319-27. 20- Bogra P, Gupta S, Kumar S. Comparative evaluation of microleakage in class II cavities restored with Ceram X and Filtek P-90: An in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2012 3(1): 9-14. 21- Khoroushi M, Mansouri T, Bentolhoda K, Mazaheri H. Marginal microleakage of resin-modified glass ionomer and composite resin restoration: effect of resin etch-and-resine and self-etch adhesive. Indian J Den Res. 2012 23(3): 378-83. 22- Floriţa Z, Romînu M, Sinescu C, Haiduc C, Kigyosi A. The microleakage in open-sandwich class II restorations. Euro Cells Mat. 2006 11(2): 23. 23- Gao BT, Lin H, Han JM, Zheng G. polymerization characteristics, flexural modulus and microleakage of siliran based and methacrylate based composites. Am J Dent. 2011 24(2): 97-102. 24- International organization for standardization. specification of dentistry resin-based filling materials. ISO 4049, 2003. 25- Papadogiannis D, Kakaboura A, Palaghias G, et al. Setting characteristics and cavity adaptation of low-shrinking resin composites. J Dent Mater. 2009 25(12): 1509-16. 26- Fahmy MZ, Moustafa Farrag N. Microleakage and shear punch bond strength in class II primary molars cavities restored with low shrink silorane based versus methacrylate based composite using three different techniques. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2010 35(2): 173-182. 27- Hedge MN, Hedge N, Hedge ND. Microleakage of silorane-based resin composite in comparison with methacrylate- based composite in class II open sandwich restorations: An in vitro study. Word J Dent. 2012 3(2): 145-9. 28- Dhingra V, Taneja S, Kumar M, Kumari M. Influence of Fiber Inserts, Type of composite, and gingival margin location on the microleakage in class ii resin composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2014 39(1): E9-15. 33ksksksk. 29- Loguercio AD, Alessandra R, Mazzocco KC. Microleakage in class II composite resin restorations:total bonding and open sandwich technique. J Adhes Dent. 2002 4(2): 137-44. 30- Aboushala A, Kugel G, Hurley E. Class II composite resin restorations using glass-ionomer liners: Microleakagestudies. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1996 21(1): 67-70. 31- Gladys S, Van MB, Braem M, Lambrechts P. Comparative physico-mechanical characterization of new hybrid restorative materials with conventional glass-ionomer and resin composite restorative materials. J Dent Res. 1997 76(4): 883-94. 32- Hallett KB, Garcia F. Microleakage of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations: An in vitro study. J Dent Mater. 1993 9(5): 306-11. 33- Andersson- IE, van JW, Kieri C. Durability of extensive class II open-sandwich restorations with resin-modified glass ionomer cement after 6 years. Am J Dent. 2004 17(1): 43-50.