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

dc.contributor.authorChailert O.
dc.contributor.authorBanomyong D.
dc.contributor.authorVongphan N.
dc.contributor.authorEkworapoj P.
dc.contributor.authorBurrow M.F.
dc.date.accessioned2021-04-05T03:23:09Z
dc.date.available2021-04-05T03:23:09Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.date.issuedBE2561
dc.description.abstractAIM: 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.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.citationJournal of investigative and clinical dentistry. Vol 9, No.2 (2018), p.e12308-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/jicd.12308
dc.identifier.issn20411626
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85057243847
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14740/4806
dc.rights.holderScopus
dc.subject.otherBisphenol A bis(2 hydroxypropyl) ether dimethacrylate
dc.subject.otherClearfil SE Bond
dc.subject.otherDentin bonding agent
dc.subject.otherGlass ionomer
dc.subject.otherResin
dc.subject.otherResin cement
dc.subject.otherSingle bond
dc.subject.otherVitrabond
dc.subject.otherChemistry
dc.subject.otherDental restoration
dc.subject.otherDental surgery
dc.subject.otherHuman
dc.subject.otherIn vitro study
dc.subject.otherMaterials testing
dc.subject.otherMolar tooth
dc.subject.otherProcedures
dc.subject.otherScanning electron microscopy
dc.subject.otherSurface property
dc.subject.otherBisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate
dc.subject.otherComposite Resins
dc.subject.otherDental Cavity Preparation
dc.subject.otherDental Restoration, Permanent
dc.subject.otherDentin-Bonding Agents
dc.subject.otherGlass Ionomer Cements
dc.subject.otherHumans
dc.subject.otherIn Vitro Techniques
dc.subject.otherMaterials Testing
dc.subject.otherMicroscopy, Electron, Scanning
dc.subject.otherMolar
dc.subject.otherResin Cements
dc.subject.otherSurface Properties
dc.titleInternal adaptation of resin composite restorations with different thicknesses of glass ionomer cement lining
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
swu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85057243847&doi=10.1111%2fjicd.12308&partnerID=40&md5=0605f6a520d0584056c75fe90fde1651

Files