Effect of saliva contamination on microleakage of alkasite restorative material

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of saliva contamination on the microleakage of resin composite, high-viscosity glass ionomer cement, and an alkasite restorative material. Materials and Methods: Eighty class II cavities were prepared on the mesial and distal surfaces of 40 extracted human molar teeth. Teeth were divided into four restorative material groups [resin composite (Solare X, GC), glass ionomer cement (Fuji IX GP, GC), an alkasite restorative material with and without adhesive (Cention N, Ivoclar Vivadent)] and mesial cavities were contaminated with human saliva (n=10). Restorative materials were applied and after the setting time of materials, restorations were finished. Specimens were thermo-aged, and were subsequently immersed in 0.5% methylene blue dye solution. Teeth were sectioned through the center of the restorations in mesio-distal direction. The extent of dye penetration was assessed using a stereomicroscope. The data was analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon nonparametric tests (p < 0.05) Results: Among the non-contaminated and saliva contaminated groups Fuji IXGP (FGP) showed the highest microleakage scores (p < 0.05). Cention N with adhesive showed the least microleakage, the difference between the alkasite groups and Solare X was not significant (p > 0.05). Both of the Cention N groups showed a lower microleakage when contaminated by saliva than FGP (p < 0.05). Saliva contamination significantly increased the microleakage scores of all groups except FGP (p < 0.05). Conclusions: An alkasite restorative material applied with or without adhesive revealed lower microleakage than high-viscosity glass ionomer cement in both non-contaminated and saliva contaminated groups.

PDF

___

1. Alqarni MA, Mathew VB, Alsalhi IYA, Alasmari ASF, Alqisi AYA, Asiri RAH, et al. Rubber dam isolation in clinical adhesive dentistry: The prevalence and assessment of associated radiolucencies. JDRR. 2019;6(4):97-101.
2. Hill EE, Rubel BS. Do dental educators need to improve their approach to teaching rubber dam use? J Dent Educ. 2008;72(10):1177-81.
3. Santschi K, Peutzfeldt A, Lussi A, Flury S. Effect of salivary contamination and decontamination on bond strength of two one-step self-etching adhesives to dentin of primary and permanent teeth. J Adhes Dent. 2015;17(1):51-7.
4. Fakhri M, Seraj B, Shahrabi M, Motahhary P, Hooshmand T. Effect of salivary contamination on microleakage of resin composites placed with a self-etch adhesive in primary teeth: an in vitro study. Pediatr dent. 2009;31(4):334-9.
5. Yalçin M, Simsek N, Keles A, Ahmetoglu F, Dündar A, Umar I. Effect of salivary contamination on micro-tensile bond strength of self-etch adhesives systems after bonding procedure. J Restor Dent. 2013;1(2):55.
6. Kulkarni AS, Kokate S, Hegde V, Fanibunda U. The Effect of Saliva Contamination on Shear Bond Strength of Two Universal Bonding Agents-An in vitro Study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2018;12(4).
7. Kim J, Hong S, Choi Y, Park S. The effect of saliva decontamination procedures on dentin bond strength after universal adhesive curing. Restor Dent Endod. 2015;40(4):299.
8. Aboushelib MN. Clinical performance of self-etching adhesives with saliva contamination. J Adhes Dent. 2011;13(5):489-93.
9. Nair P, Ilie N. The long-term consequence of salivary contamination at various stages of adhesive application and clinically feasible remedies to decontaminate. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24:4413- 26.
10. Çelik Ç, Bayraktar Y, Özdemir BE. Effect of Saliva Contamination on Microleakage of Open Sandwich Restorations. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2020;54(3):273-82.
11. Shimazu K, Karibe H, Ogata K. Effect of artificial saliva contamination on adhesion of dental restorative materials. Dent Mater J. 2014;33(4):545-50.
12. Moda MD, Godas AGdL, Fernandes JC, Suzuki TY, Guedes APA, Briso AL, et al. Comparison of different polishing methods on the surface roughness of microhybrid, microfill, and nanofill composite resins. J Investig Clin Dent. 2018;9(1):e12287.
13. Mohammadi N, Kimyai S, Lahij YG, Bahari M, Ajami AA, Kahnamouei MA, et al. Comparison of the effect of bleaching with 15% carbamide peroxide and 35% hydrogen peroxide on flexural strength of Cention N in selfcured and dual-cured polymerization modes. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2020;14(2):105.
14. N C. Scientific Documentation. https://wwwivoclarvivadentcomtr/ tr/productcategories/ dolgu/cention-n. 2016.
15. Meshram P, Meshram V, Palve D, Patil S, Gade V, Raut A. Comparative evaluation of microleakage around Class V cavities restored with alkasite restorative material with and without bonding agent and flowable composite resin: An in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res. 2019;30(3):403.
16. Mazumdar P, Das A, Das UK. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three different direct restorative materials (silver amalgam, glass ionomer cement, Cention N), in class II restorations using stereomicroscope: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res. 2019;30(2):277.
17. Afraaz A, Borugadda R, Mandava J, Chalasani U, Ravi R, Pamidimukkala S, et al. Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation and Wear Resistance of Nanohybrid and Alkasite Restorative Resins. J Clin Diagn Res. 2020;14(12).
18. Shailendra M, Selvakumar G, Diwanji P, Indi S, Hambire A. Comparative Evaluation of Apical Seal using Cention N and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate as Retrograde Filling Material. RUHS J Health Sci. 2019;4(4):205-9.
19. Motevasselian F, Kermanshah H, Rasoulkhani E, Özcan M. Comparison of microleakage of an alkasite restorative material, a composite resin and a resin-modified glass ionomer. Braz J Oral Sci. 2021;20:e213981-e.
20. Gamarra VSS, Borges GA, Júnior LHB, Spohr AM. Marginal adaptation and microleakage of a bulk-fill composite resin photopolymerized with different techniques. Odontology. 2018;106(1):56-63.
21. Tjäderhane L. Dentin bonding: can we make it last? Oper dent. 2015;40(1):4-18.
22. Surmelioglu D, Gundogar ZU. Effects of ozone application on fissure sealants prepared different surface etching modalities: An in vitro study. Ann Med Res. 2019;26(4):556-60.
23. Dietrich T, Lösche A, Lösche G, Roulet J-F. Marginal adaptation of direct composite and sandwich restorations in Class II cavities with cervical margins in dentin. J dent. 1999;27(2):119- 28.
24. Loguercio AD, Reis A, Mazzocco KC, Dias AL, Busato ALS, da Motta Singer J, et al. Microleakage in class II composite resin restorations: total bonding and open sandwich technique. J Adhes Dent. 2002;4(2).
25. Nair P, Hickel R, Ilie N. Adverse effects of salivary contamination for adhesives in restorative dentistry. A literature review. Am J Dent. 2017;30(3):156-64.
26. Cadenaro M, Maravic T, Comba A, Mazzoni A, Fanfoni L, Hilton T, et al. The role of polymerization in adhesive dentistry. Dent Mater. 2019;35(1):e1-e22.
27. Sahadev C, Bharath M, Sandeep R. An-in vitro comparative evaluation of marginal microleakage of Cention-N with Bulk- Fill SDR and Zirconomer: A confocal microscopic study. Int J Sci Res. 2018;7(7):635-8.
28. Kini A, Shetty S, Bhat R, Shetty P. Microleakage evaluation of an alkasite restorative material: An In Vitro dye penetration study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2019;20(11):1315-8.
29. Sujith R, Yadav TG, Pitalia D, Babaji P, Apoorva K, Sharma A. Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical and Microleakage Properties of Cention-N, Composite, and Glass Ionomer Cement Restorative Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2020;21(6):691-5.