| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2012 | Volume
: 15
| Issue : 3 | Page : 233-236 |
|
|
Comparative evaluation of traditional and self-priming hydrophilic resin
Ruchi Singla1, Poonam Bogra2, Bhawana Singal3
1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dr. H.S.J. Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Chandigarh, India
2 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, J.N.Kapoor D.A.V. (C) Dental College, Yamunanagar, India
3 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Swami Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College, Barwala, Haryana, India
Correspondence Address:
Ruchi Singla
Assistant Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dr. H.S.J. Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Chandigarh
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.97944
|
|
|
Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the microleakage of traditional composite (Charisma/Gluma Comfort Bond) and self-priming resin (Embrace Wetbond).
Materials and Methods: Standardized Class V cavities partly in enamel and cementum were prepared in 20 extracted human premolars. Teeth were divided into two groups. Group 1 was restored with Charisma/Gluma Comfort Bond and Group 2 with Embrace Wetbond. The specimens were stored in distilled water at room temperature for 24 h and then subjected to 200 thermocycles at 5°C and 55°C with a 1 min dwell time. After thermocycling teeth were immersed in a 0.2% solution of methylene blue dye for 24 h. Teeth were sectioned vertically approximately midway through the facial and lingual surfaces using a diamond saw blade. Microleakage was evaluated at enamel and cementum surfaces using 10 Χ stereomicroscope. The statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Results: Wetbond showed less microleakage at occlusal and gingival margins as compared with Charisma/Gluma Comfort Bond and the results were statistically significant (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: Class V cavities restored with Embrace Wetbond with fewer steps and fewer materials offers greater protection against microleakage at the tooth restorative interface. |
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
