We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Quintessence International



Forgotten password?


Quintessence Int 28 (1997), No. 8     1. Aug. 1997
Quintessence Int 28 (1997), No. 8  (01.08.1997)

Page 541-544

Effect of gap size and cement type on gingival microleakage in Class V resin composite inlays
Browning / Safirstein
Microleakage along the gingival interface was measured in 52 teeth that had received standardized preparations at a fixed depth of 2.0 mm and were restored with Class V composite inlays. Two fabrication techniques and two types of luting cement were compared. Twenty-six teeth were cemented with a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement, and 26 were cemented with a conventional resin cement. Half of the inlay patterns in each cementation group were fabricated directly on the tooth, and half were fabricated indirectly on stone dies. The resin cement was more significantly effective in preventing leakage than the resin-modified glass-ionomer cement. There was no statistically significant difference between inlay fabrication techniques. For those inlays cemented with the resin cement, the mean leakage was substantially lower for the indirect patterns than for the direct group. Although this difference was not statistically significant, it suggests that the slightly larger interfacial gap resulting from the fabrication of indirect patterns is effective in creating a better seal.