Perbedaan Kebocoran Tepi antara GIC Konvensional dan Resin Modified GIC pada Restorasi Kelas V (Difference on Microleakage of Conventional GIC and Resin Modified GIC in Class V Restoration)
Downloads
Background. Microleakage is one of the challenging concerns in direct filling restorations. Restoration material should have good adaptation between the restoration and the cavity walls to seal the cavity in a good way. Glass ionomer cement (GIC) is one of restoration material which indicated for class V cavity. GIC has a good adherence to the cavity wall but fragile to liquid contamination during the setting time. Resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) is a hybrid glass ionomer cement with the addition of hidroxyethylmethacrylate (HEMA) in the liquid to increase the properties and endurance to liquid contamination. Aim. The aim of this study was to investigate the difference on microleakage of conventional GIC and resin modified GIC in class V restoration. Material and methods. Class V cavities (depth: 2 mm) were prepared on the cervical surface of 32 human first permanent premolars. Teeth were classified into three groups. Group 1: conventional GIC + varnish. Group 2:RMGIC + varnish. All cavities were restored, then stored in artificial saliva at 37ºC for 24 hours. The teeth were immersed in a 1% methylene blue dye solution for 24 hours, and then rinsed in running water, dried, and sectioned longitudinally. The section were assessed for microleakage of dye penetration by two independent evaluators using a digital microscope. Data were collected and statistically analyzed. Results. RMGIC showed no significant difference with conventional GIC. However, there is a slight difference, RMGIC has a slight lower microleakage than conventional GIC. Conclusion. RMGIC showed only slight lower microleakage than conventional GIC, but not significant.
Chandra S & Chandra S. Textbook of Operative Dentistry (with MCQs). 1st. India: Jaypee Brother; 2008: 206-210
Mali P, & Singh H. Microleakage of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement Restorations:An In Vitro Study. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry 2006 ; 24: 15-1
Hewlett ER & Mount GJ.Glass Ionomer in Contemporary Restorative Dentistry – A Clinical Update,Journal of California Dental Association 2003; 31(6): 484-8
Nagaraja UP & Kishore G.Glass Ionomer Cement – The Different Generations.Trend Biomater.Artif. Organs 2005; 18(2): 159-62.
Saleh LA, & Kaiil MF. The Effect of Different Protective Coatings on the Surface Hardness of Glass Ionomer Cement. The Saudi Dental Journal 2006; 6(1): 3-7.
Sidhu SK. Glass Ionomer in Dentistry.Switzerland : Springer; 2015. p. 61
Yadav Gunjan. A Comparative Evaluation of Marginal Leakage of Different Restorative Materials in Deciduous Molars: An in vitro Study. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 2012; 5(2): 101-07.
Danielson GP, & Valcacio C.Microleakage Evaluation of Restoration with Conventional and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement. OHDM 2014; 13(3). Brazil: University of Amazonas: 644-5.
Cefaly DFG, Wang L, Mello LLCP, Santos JL, Santos JR, & Lauris JRP. Water Sorption of Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cements Photoactivated with LED. Brazilian Oral Research 2006; 20(4): 342-6.
CDJ by Unair is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1. The journal allows the author to hold the copyright of the article without restrictions.
2. The journal allows the author(s) to retain publishing rights without restrictions