Objective To assess the microleakage of Class V restorations made with two resin-modified glass ionomer cements （RMGICs） and two polyacid-modified composite resins （PMCRs）. Methods Restorations of the four materia...Objective To assess the microleakage of Class V restorations made with two resin-modified glass ionomer cements （RMGICs） and two polyacid-modified composite resins （PMCRs）. Methods Restorations of the four materials （ GC Fuji Ⅱ LC, Vitremer^TM, Dyract AP and F2000^TM ） were placed in facial Class V cavity preparations in forty noncarious human molar teeth. Teeth were randomly assigned to 4 experimental groups of 10 teeth each. After thermal cycling（ ×20, 5 -55℃ ） , the interface between dentin and restorations was spattercoated with gold and observed under scanning electron microscopy （SEM）. Then the square and average width of margin gaps of central 1/3 interface were recorded with image analysis software. Results The data indicated no significant differences between all the restorative materials for both occlusal and gingival margins. Further analysis revealed there were statistically significant differences between occlusal margins and gingival margins for VitremerTM and Dyract AP, respectively. Conclusion None of the tested materials guaranteed margins free of microleakage. Resin-modified glass ionomer cements showed similar margin gaps to the polyacid-modified composite resins tested.展开更多
文摘Objective To assess the microleakage of Class V restorations made with two resin-modified glass ionomer cements （RMGICs） and two polyacid-modified composite resins （PMCRs）. Methods Restorations of the four materials （ GC Fuji Ⅱ LC, Vitremer^TM, Dyract AP and F2000^TM ） were placed in facial Class V cavity preparations in forty noncarious human molar teeth. Teeth were randomly assigned to 4 experimental groups of 10 teeth each. After thermal cycling（ ×20, 5 -55℃ ） , the interface between dentin and restorations was spattercoated with gold and observed under scanning electron microscopy （SEM）. Then the square and average width of margin gaps of central 1/3 interface were recorded with image analysis software. Results The data indicated no significant differences between all the restorative materials for both occlusal and gingival margins. Further analysis revealed there were statistically significant differences between occlusal margins and gingival margins for VitremerTM and Dyract AP, respectively. Conclusion None of the tested materials guaranteed margins free of microleakage. Resin-modified glass ionomer cements showed similar margin gaps to the polyacid-modified composite resins tested.
