A Compartive Study Of Microleakage Of Titanium And Composite Inlays

In prosthodontics, microleakage is defined as the leakage of inions, fluid, bacterial and its production through the interface of the teeth and restorative materials. The pathology of the microleakage includes the infection of the pulp and secondary caries and pulp disease. The microleakage resulted partial or complete losing of the restorative materials may finally lead to the failure of the restorative treatment. Thus the marginal microleakage of the restorative material has become a hot topic of the dentists in the recent few years.The etiology of microleakage is complicated. It is related to the moisture in oral environment, the enzyme in the saliva and the pH value of the food. In the recent 20 years, the development of the restorative materials to protect the leakage from the marginal of the restorative interface has been emphasized. The titanium has been used widely in clinic due to its good biocapacity. Composite resin has also been used to minimize the microleakage effectively. Currently the application of composite resin, titanium inlays and the direct composite restorations have been reported but only few studies did a complete comparison and the results remains controversial.Objectives:To compare the effect of three types of luting agents on finessing the composite resin and titanium inlays to protect the microleakage; to compare the effect of composite resin and titanium inlays and direct composite restorations on protecting microleakage.Materials and methods:84 healthy maxillary premolars were randomly assigned to 7 groups, 12 in each. The group I, II and III used titanium inlay and treated with glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer and composite resin as luting agents. Group IV, V and VI used composite resin inlay and treated with glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer and composite resin as luting agents. The VII group was treated with direct composite restorations.Groups were compared by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (SPSS, USA) and post Hoc multiple comparison test whenever appropriate. The statistical result was set at 0.05 as significant.Results:1.The same material prepared inlays treated with different luting agents demonstrated significantly different degree microleakage.2.The different material prepared inlays treated with same luting agents demonstrated significantly different degree micoleakage.3.The microleakage at enamal margins was different to the microleakage at the cementum margins.Conclusions:1.The effect of resin-modified glass ionomers and resin luting agents on protecting microleakage is superior to glass ionomers luting agents.2.The effect of titanium inlay and resin inlay on protecting microleakage is superior to direct composite restorations.3.The microleakage at enamal margins was significantly lower than the microleakage at the cementum margins.