To Evaluate the Effect of Different Adhesive Materials on the Microleakage of Bonded Amalgam Restorations: An in vitro Study

  • Gambhir A
  • Bembi S
  • Sood A
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This study evaluated the ability of different adhesive materials in reducing the microleakage in class V amalgam restorations. Standardized class V cavities were prepared on the facial surface of 56 noncarious human premolars, they were then randomly divided into control and experimental groups based on adhesives used. Group I was the control group with copal varnish, group II had Panavia F 2.0, group III contained Vitrebond Plus and group IV had RelyX ARC as adhesives. Amalgam was hand condensed into each preparation after application of adhesive material. Specimens were thermocycled, stained and sectioned. Microleakage was graded using a stereomicroscope. Less leakage was observed in all experimental groups compared to control group (p < 0.01) on nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test. Mann-Whitney test observed leakage was more extensive at the gingival margins (p < 0.01) in all restorations than at occlusal margins. Group III showed no leakage which was significantly different from other groups (p < 0.05). Hence, this study concluded that application of intermediate adhesive material before condensation of amalgam can act as an effective barrier for microleakage. How to cite this article: Bembi S, Bembi NN, Sood A, Gambhir A. To Evaluate the Effect of Different Adhesive Materials on the Microleakage of Bonded Amalgam Restorations: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2013;6(2):95-99.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Gambhir, A., Bembi, S., Sood, A., & Bembi Narula, N. (2013). To Evaluate the Effect of Different Adhesive Materials on the Microleakage of Bonded Amalgam Restorations: An in vitro Study. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, 6(2), 95–99. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1197

Readers over time

‘15‘16‘17‘18‘20‘21‘22‘2400.751.52.253

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 6

75%

Researcher 2

25%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 7

88%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1

13%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0