Publication:
Internal adaptation of resin composite restorations with different thicknesses of glass ionomer cement lining

0
0

Issued Date

2018

Resource Type

Article

File Type

application/pdf

ISSN

20411626

DOI

10.1111/jicd.12308

Other identifier(s)

2-s2.0-85057243847

Rights Holder(s)

Scopus

Bibliographic Citation

Journal of investigative and clinical dentistry. Vol 9, No.2 (2018), p.e12308-

Suggested Citation

Chailert O., Banomyong D., Vongphan N., Ekworapoj P., Burrow M.F. Internal adaptation of resin composite restorations with different thicknesses of glass ionomer cement lining. Journal of investigative and clinical dentistry. Vol 9, No.2 (2018), p.e12308-. doi:10.1111/jicd.12308 Retrieved from: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14740/4806

Title

Internal adaptation of resin composite restorations with different thicknesses of glass ionomer cement lining

Author(s)

Chailert O.
 Banomyong D.
 Vongphan N.
 Ekworapoj P.
 Burrow M.F.

Abstract

AIM: The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of the thin or thick placement of resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) lining on the adaptation of resin composite restorations bonded with two types of adhesive. METHODS: Sixty deep occlusal cavities were prepared and divided into two groups: etch-and-rinse adhesive (Single Bond 2) or self-etching adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond). Specimens were further divided into three subgroups: no lining (control), lined with 0.5 mm-thin RMGIC, or lined with 1 mm-thick RMGIC (Vitrebond). Each cavity was bonded, restored with resin composite, and sectioned to obtain two specimens. One specimen was stained with 2% methylene blue, and dye staining at the pulpal floor and cavity walls was calculated. Other specimens were investigated for micro-gap formation using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). RESULTS: For Single Bond 2, dye staining was not significantly different among the three groups. For Clearfil SE Bond, lining absence showed the lowest dye staining at the pulpal floor. Dye staining of 0.5 mm-thin RMGIC significantly increased, but 1 mm-thick RMGIC tended to reduce dye staining. Comparing the two adhesives, there was no significant difference in dye staining. From the SEM images, micro-gaps were more frequently observed in the 0.5 mm-thin lining groups. CONCLUSIONS: RMGIC should be placed as a thick lining, if indicated. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

Subject(s)

Bisphenol A bis(2 hydroxypropyl) ether dimethacrylate
 Clearfil SE Bond
 Dentin bonding agent
 Glass ionomer
 Resin
 Resin cement
 Single bond
 Vitrabond
 Chemistry
 Dental restoration
 Dental surgery
 Human
 In vitro study
 Materials testing
 Molar tooth
 Procedures
 Scanning electron microscopy
 Surface property
 Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate
 Composite Resins
 Dental Cavity Preparation
 Dental Restoration, Permanent
 Dentin-Bonding Agents
 Glass Ionomer Cements
 Humans
 In Vitro Techniques
 Materials Testing
 Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
 Molar
 Resin Cements
 Surface Properties

View online Resources

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

URI

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14740/4806

Collections

Scopus: Year 1983-2021

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Referenced By