Comparative evaluation of microleakage of nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer: An in vitro study

Within the limitations of this in vitro study, nano-filled RMGIs restorations did not perform better than high viscosity glass ionomer in class V cavities in terms of microleakage assessment.

Thirty-two class V cavities prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 16 sound, third molar teeth were randomly assigned into two groups and restored by one of the glass ionomer material; Group A: A high viscosity (Ketac Molar, 3M ESPE) Group B: A nano-filled resin-modified (Ketac N100, 3M ESPE) glass ionomer. One clinician prepared all the cavities. The materials were used according to the manufacturers' recommendations. The restored teeth were then stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h, thermocycled at 5-55°C for 1000 cycles. The specimens were immersed in aqueous solution of Indian ink dye for 48 h at room temperature. They were embedded in resin polyester and sectioned longitudinally in a buccolingual direction. Microleakage was assessed according to the depth of dye penetration along the restoration. The extent of dye penetration at the occlusal and gingival margins was assessed using a stereo microscope. Randomly selected samples from each group were prepared for scanning electron microscope evaluation. The data were statistically analyzed with Friedman and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests.

This in vitro study evaluated the microleakage of a nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer and a high viscosity glass-ionomer restorations in class V cavities. Materials and

There were statistically significant differences between the microleakage scores of the two groups for both occlusal and gingival scores (P = 0.001). Occlusal and gingival scores for high viscosity glass ionomer (P = 0.024) and nanoionomer (P = 0.021) using Wilcoxon signed ranks tests showed statistically significant differences. High viscosity glass ionomer showed significantly less microleakage compared to the nano-filled resin-modified glass-ionomer (RMGIs) at occlusal margin (P = 0.001). No significant differences were found between the groups at gingival margin (P = 0.0317).