Logo-joddd
J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2016;10(1): 23-29.
doi: 10.15171/joddd.2016.004
PMID: 27092211
PMCID: PMC4831607
  Abstract View: 846
  PDF Download: 784

Original Research

Effect of two prophylaxis methods on marginal gap of Cl Vresin-modified glass-ionomer restorations

Soodabeh Kimyai 1,2*, Fatemeh Pournaghi-Azar 3, Mehdi Daneshpooy 3, Mehdi Abed Kahnamoii 4, Farnaz Davoodi 5

1 Dental and Periodontal Research Center, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
2 Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
4 Associate Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
5 Post-graduate student, Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
*Corresponding Author: Email: soodabehkimyai@yahoo.com

Abstract

Background. This study evaluated the effect of two prophylaxis techniques on the marginal gap of CI V resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations.Methods. Standard Cl V cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces of 48 sound bovine mandibular incisors in this in vitro study. After restoration of the cavities with GC Fuji II LC resin-modified glass-ionomer, the samples were randomly assigned to 3 groups of 16. In group 1, the prophylactic procedures were carried out with rubber cup and pumice powder and in group 2 with air-powder polishing device (APD). In group 3 (control), the samples did not undergo any prophylactic procedures. Then the marginal gaps were measured. Two-way ANOVA was used to compare marginal gaps at the occlusal and gingival margins between the groups. Post hoc Tukey test was used for two-by-two comparisons. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.Results. There were significant differences in the means of marginal gaps in terms of prophylactic techniques (P < 0.001), with significantly larger marginal gaps in the APD group compared to the pumice and rubber cup group, which in turn exhibited significantly larger marginal gaps compared to the control group (P < 0.0005). In addition, the means of marginal gaps were significant in terms of the margin type (P < 0.001), with significantly larger gaps at gingival margins compared to the occlusal margins (P < 0.0005).Conclusion. The prophylactic techniques used in this study had a negative effect on the marginal gaps of Cl V resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations.
First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Comments
Security code


Abstract View: 847

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


PDF Download: 784

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

Submitted: 05 Apr 2016
Accepted: 07 Apr 2016
ePublished: 07 Apr 2016
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)