20Sep 2019

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF MICROLEAKAGE AND COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF GLASS IONOMER CEMENT TYPE IX, ZIRCONOMER IMPROVED AND CENTION N - AN IN VITRO STUDY.

  • Post graduate - Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry,DivyaJyoti College of Dental Sciences and Research,Address - 36 A, Dr. Sudhir Bose Road, Kaiser Court Bd, Khidderpore, Kolkata ? 700023, West Bengal, India.
  • Professor,Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry,DivyaJyoti College of Dental Sciences and Research,Address - A-28, Defence Colony, Mawana Road, Meerut (UP) 250001, India.
  • Professor and Head of Department, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, DivyaJyoti College of Dental Sciences and Research, Address - G-3, 617, Sector ? 1, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P ? 201010, India.
  • Professor,Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, DivyaJyoti College of Dental Sciences and Research, Address ? L-44 Pallavpuram Phase 2, Meerut, India.
Crossref Cited-by Linking logo
  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • Cite This Article as
  • Corresponding Author

Context:Restorative dentistry is a blend of art and science. Newer restorative materials like Cention N and Zirconomer Improved are giving a challenge to conventional restorative materials. Aims: To evaluate and compare the microleakage and compressive strength of GIC type IX, Zirconomer Improved and Cention N using stereomicroscope and universal testing machine. Study design: For microleakage evaluation, 45 non carious extracted premolars divided into three groups were restored with GIC type IX, Zirconomer Improved and Cention N respectively. Post thermocycling they were immersed in mythelene blue dye for 24 hours. Sectioning was done and viewed under stereomicroscope for scoring by Vinay S and Shivanna V. For compressive strength evaluation, 45 standardized autoclavablemoulds were taken and divided into three groups each, which were then restored with GIC type IX, Zirconomer Improved and Cention N respectively. Thermocycling was done and the pellets were stored in distilled water for 24 hours and subjected to compressive strength testing in universal testing machine. The data was statistically analyzed and results were obtained. Statistical analysis:One Way-Anovaand Tukey?s Post Hoc Test Was Used for Multiple Group Comparisons. Result:Cention N had the least microleakage followed by Zirconomer Improved and GIC type IX. Compressive strength was highest in Cention N followed by Zirconomer Improved and least with GIC type IX. Conclusion:Cention N can be recommended as a permanent restorative material on account of good compressive strength and less microleakage.

  1. Hind P Bhatia, Shivani Singh, ShvetaSood, Naresh Sharma. A Comparative Evaluation of Sorption, Solubility, and Compressive Strength of Three Different Glass Ionomer Cements in Artificial Saliva: An?in vitro Int J ClinPediatr Dent 2017; 10(1):49-54.
  2. Uday Kamath, Dr. Afna Salam. Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars with mod cavities restored with Zirconomer: An?in vitrocomparative study. Int J Appli Dent Sci 2016; 2(2):77-80.
  3. Jagvinder Singh Mann, Dr. Sunakshi Sharma, Dr. SonalMaurya, Dr. Ashok Suman. Cention N: A Review. International Journal of Current Research. 2018; 10(5):69111-69112.
  4. Andr? M, Jane Clei O A, Rosa A, Paulo V R, Let?cia B J. Compressive strength of glass ionomer cements using different specimen dimensions. Braz Oral Res.2007 Jul-Sep; 21(3):204-8.
  5. Deepak, M. S. Nivedhitha. Proximal contact tightness between two different restorative materials ? An in vitro study. J Adv Pharm Edu Res 2017; 7(2):153-156.
  6. SoumitaSamanta, Utpal Kumar Das, Aditya Mitra. Comparison of Microleakage In Class V Cavity Restored with Flowable Composite Resin, Glass Ionomer Cement and Cention N. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research. 2017; 3(8):180-183.
  7. Debolina Chowdhury, Dr. ChiranjanGuha, Dr. Priti Desai. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of dental Amalgam, Z350 Composite resin and Cention N restoration in class II cavity. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences. 2018; 17(4):1.
  8. ParomitaMazumdar, Abiskrita Das, ChiranjanGuha. Comparative evaluation of hardness of different restorative materials (restorative GIC, Cention N, Nano Hybrid Composite Resin and Silver Amalgam) - An in vitro study. Int J Adv Res. 2018; 6(3):826-832.
  9. Nagy Abdulsamee Ahmed HosnyElkhadem. Zirconomer and Zirconomer Improved (White Amalgams): Restorative Materials for the Future. Review. EC Dental Science. 2017, 15.4: 134-150.
  10. Walia R, Jasuja P, Verma K G, Juneja S, Mathur A, Ahuja L. A comparative evaluation of microleakage and compressive strength of Ketac Molar, Giomer, Zirconomer, and Ceram-x: An?in vitro J Indian SocPedodPrev Dent 2016; 34:280-4.
  11. Chitharanjan Shetty, Dr. VandanaSadananda, Prof. Dr. Mithra N. Hegde, Dr. Anish Kumar Lagisetti, Prof. Dr. Aditya Shetty, Dr. Tony Mathew, Prof. Dr. Shishir Shetty. Comparative Evaluation of Compressive Strength of Ketac Molar, Zirconomer, and Zirconomer Improved. J. Dent. Sci. 2017 June; 4(6):259-261.
  12. Amish Diwanji, VineetDhar, Ruchi Arora, AMadhusadan, Ambika Singh Rathore. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of three restorative glass ionomer cements: An in vitro study. J Nat SciBiol Med. 2014; 5(2):373-377.

[Talat Naz, Deepti Jawa Singh, Rani Somani and Shipra Jaidka. (2019); COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF MICROLEAKAGE AND COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF GLASS IONOMER CEMENT TYPE IX, ZIRCONOMER IMPROVED AND CENTION N - AN IN VITRO STUDY. Int. J. of Adv. Res. 7 (Sep). 921-931] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com

Dr. Talat Naz
Post Graduate

DOI:

Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/9738      
DOI URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/9738

Download Full Paper

Download PDF No. of Downloads: 186 | No. of Views: 528