in vitro evaluation of marginal leakage using invasive and noninvasive technique of light cure glass ionomer and flowable polyacid modified composite resin used as pit and fissure sealant.

Aim: This study compared the microleakage of light cure glass ionomer and flowable compomer as pit and fissure sealant, with and without tooth preparation. Materials and Methods: One hundred premolars that were extracted for orthodontic purpose were used. After adequate storage and surface debridement, the teeth were randomly divided into four groups. In Group I and III, the occlusal surfaces were left intact, while in Group II and Group IV, tooth surfaces were prepared. Teeth in Group I and Group II were sealed with Light cure glass ionomer, whereas flowable compomer was used to seal teeth in Group III and IV. The sealed teeth were then immersed in dye. Subsequently, buccolingual sections were made and each section was examined under stereomicroscope for microleakage followed by scoring. Results: In group I, microleakage score ranged from 2 to 4 with mean of 3.64 (±0.757), while in group II the range was observed to be 1-4 with mean of 2.88 (±1.236). Group III recorded a range of 0-4 with the mean of 2.20 (±1.443) while 0-2 and 0.60 (±0.707) being the range and mean observed, respectively, for group IV. Conclusion: Flowable compomer placed after tooth preparation showed better penetration and less marginal leakage than the light cure glass ionomer.

Influence of flowable materials on microleakage of nanofilled and hybrid Class II composite restorations with LED and QTH LCUs.

Background: Class II composite restorations are more frequently being placed with margins apical to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) and margins within the dentin are prone to microleakage. Aims: This in vitro study was used to evaluate the influence of flowable composite and flowable compomer as gingival liner on microleakage in Class II composite restorations and compare a light-emitting diode (LED) unit with a quartz tungsten halogen (QTH) unit for light-activating composite resins. Materials and Methods: Mesioocclusal and distoocclusal Class II cavity preparations were made in 72 sound extracted premolars. The buccolingual width was 2.5 mm and the gingival margins of all the cavities were placed 1.0 mm apical to the CEJ. The boxes were prepared 1.5 mm deep axially, making 144 slot cavities. Teeth were randomly divided into the following two groups (n = 72): (I) Universal Filtek Supreme XT; Universal Filtek Supreme XT + Flwable Filtek XT and Universal Filtek Supreme XT + Dyract Flow and (II) Filtek Z250; Filtek Z250 + Flwable Filtek XT and Filtek Z250 + Dyract Flow. Flowable materials were injected into the gingival floor of the cavity to a thickness of 1.0 mm. Each increment was cured for 20 s. One-half of the subgroups in each group were cured with QTH and the other half with LED light curing units (LCUs). After 1 week of incubation at 37°C, the specimens were thermocycled (5-55°C, x1500), immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsine dye for 24 h and sectioned and microleakage was evaluated at the gingival margin by two examiners using a 0-3 score scale. The data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: The groups utilizing flowable liners had significantly less microleakage (P < 0.05). No significant difference was identified between Universal Filtek Supreme XT and Filtek Z250 composites with and without flowable materials. There was no significant between utilizing flowable composite or flowable compomer and between each similar subgroup when polymerized with either the LED or the QTH LCUs. Conclusions: A layer of flowable materials at the gingival floor of Class II composite restorations may be recommended to improve the marginal seal of a restoration.

Compressive strength of esthetic restorative materials polymerized with quartz-tungsten-halogen light and blue LED

This study compared the compressive strength of a composite resin and compomer photoactivated with a conventional quartz-tungsten halogen-light (XL 3000, 3M/SPE) and a blue light-emitting diode (LED) (SmartLite PS; Dentsply/De Trey). Forty disc-shaped specimens were prepared using a split polytetrafluoroethylene matrix (4.0 mm diameter x 8.0 mm hight) in which the materials were inserted incrementally. The curing time of each increment was of 40 s with the QTH and 10 s with the LED. The specimens were randomly assigned to 4 groups (n=10), according to the light source and the restorative material. After storage in distilled water at 37oC ± 2oC for 24 h, the specimens was tested in compressive strength in a universal testing machine with load cell of 500 kgf running at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Data (in MPa) were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test (p<0.05). For the composite resin, light curing with the QTH source did not produce statistically significant difference (p>0.05) in the compressive strength when compared to light curing with the LED source. However, light curing of the compomer with the QTH source resulted in significantly higher compressive strength than the use of the LED unit (p>0.05). The composite resin presented significantly higher (p>0.05) compressive strength than the compomer, regardless of the light source. In conclusion, the compressive strength of the tested materials photoactivated with a QTH and a LED light source was influenced by the energy density employed and the chemical composition of the esthetic restorative materials.

Este estudo comparou a resistência à compressão de uma resina composta e de um compômero, fotoativados com luz halógena convencional de quarto-tungstênio (QTH) (XL 300, 3M/SPE) e LED azul (SmartLite PS; Dentsply/De Trey). Foram confeccionados 40 espécimes em forma de disco usando uma matriz bipartida de politetrafluoretileno (4,0 mm de diâmetro x 8,0 mm de altura) em que o material foi inserido incrementalmente. O tempo de polimerização de cada incremento foi de 40 s para a luz halógena convencional e de 10 s para o LED. Os espécimes foram aleatoriamente alocados em 4 grupos (n=10), de acordo com a fonte de luz e com o material restaurador. Depois de armazenadas em água destilada a 37°C ± 2°C por 24 h, a resistência à compressão dos espécimes foi testada em uma máquina universal de ensaios com célula de carga de 500 kgf a uma velocidade de carregamento de 0,5 mm/min. Os dados (em MPa) foram analisados estatisticamente por ANOVA e teste de Student-Newman-Keuls (p<0,05). Para a resina composta, a fotopolimerização com luz halógena não produziu diferença estatisticamente significante (p>0,05) em sua resistência à compressão quando comparada à fotopolimerização com LED. Contudo, a fotopolimerização do compômero com a luz halógena resultou em uma resistência à compressão significativamente maior que a feita o LED (p>0,05). A resina composta apresentou resistência à compressão significativamente maior que a do compômero, independente da fonte de luz. Concluiu-se que a resistência à compressão dos materiais fotopolimerizados com luz halógena e LED foi influenciada pela densidade de energia empregada e pela composição química dos materiais restauradores estéticos.