ISSN 0970 - 4388

Microleakage of restorative materials: An in vitro study

MALI P.a, DESHPANDE S.b, SINGH A.c

Abstract

The present study was conducted with the aim of evaluating and comparing the microleakage of glass ionomer, composite
resin and compomers. Class V cavities were made in thirty intact caries free premolars and restored with restorative materials
to be tested respectively. The teeth were thermocycled and subjected to silver nitrate dye penetration. They were subsequently
sectioned buccolingually. Microleakage was evaluated under a stereomicroscope and data subjected to statistical analysis. The
study concluded that microleakage was evident in all restorative materials, with glass ionomer showing maximum leakage
followed by composite resin. Compomer demonstrated the best results with minimum leakage.

Key words: Compomer, Composite resin, Glass ionomer, Microleakage

There has always been a keen interest in the adaptation of
dental restorative materials to the walls of the cavity and
the retentive ability of a material to seal the cavity against
ingress of oral fluids and microorganisms. Microleakage
around dental restorative materials is a major problem in
clinical dentistry. It may be defined as the clinically unde­
tectable passage of bacteria, fluids, molecules or ions be­
tween a cavity wall and the restorative materials applied to
it.[1] This seepage can cause hypersensitivity of restored teeth,
tooth discoloration, recurrent caries, pulpal injury and ac­
celerated deterioration of some restorative materials.
Over the past fifty years, many changes have occurred in
development and availability of restorative materials for
children. Fluoride releasing and chemical bonding proper­
ties of glass ionomer cements are well known. However,
poor physical properties such as tendency to undergo sur­
face crazing, low fracture resistance, and esthetics limit its
use. Composites on the other hand possess excellent physi­
cal and mechanical properties such as compressive, flexural
and tensile strength as well as esthetics. The only disadvan­
tage with composite is that several clinical steps are required
to obtain a good interfacial bond. Because of perceived in­
adequacies in the ease of use of composites inspite of their
excellent physical properties, compomers were introduced
in 1992. Compomers contain 20% glass ionomer cement
combined with 20% visible light polymersied resin compo­
nent. Acid etching is optional. Their excellent physical prop­
erties along with fluoride releasing ability, minimal steps in
placement and composite like esthetics make them the stron­
gest and most esthetically desirable material.
Most restorative materials show varying degrees of marginal
leakage because of dimensional changes and lack of adapt­
ability to cavity walls. The relationship between marginal
leakage in restorations and type of restorative materials used
has been extensively studied both in clinical and laboratory
experiments. In the absence of definitive clinical data, labo­
ratory microleakage studies are a well accepted method of
screening adhesive restorative materials for marginal seal.
Microleakage investigation of compomers and their com­
parison with other materials have compared only a limited
number of products but in general have shown adequately
sealed restoration margins.
The purpose of this in vitro study, therefore, was to com­
pare the sealing ability of glass ionomer cement (Fuji2), com­
posite resin (Z100) and glass ionomer resin cement
(Compomer F2000) in standard Class V cavities using 50%
silver nitrate dye.
Materials and Methods
Thirty caries free premolars extracted for orthodontic pur­
poses were selected for the study to evaluate the
microleakage. The teeth were examined by transillumina­
tion to exclude teeth exhibiting enamel fractures as these
might allow dye penetration. The teeth were thoroughly
cleaned and stored in distilled water with few thymol crys­
tals added to it. Standard Class V cavities were prepared
with an ISO size (No.014) inverted cone and straight fissure
(No.010) bur 1.5 mm oclusally from the cemento-enamel
junction. The bur was changed after every five specimens.
Cavity size was standardized to a size of 3x2x2 mm dimen­
sions. All preparations were carried out with high speed air
rotar with water spray coolant by the same operator. Fol­
lowing cavity preparation, specimens were randomly divided
into three experimental groups (n=10) and were filled ac­
cording to manufacturers instructions.

a,c
Ex-Postgraduate students, bEx Prof. and Head of Department, Group A: Fuji 2, G C Corporation, Tokyo, Japan
Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, K.L.E.S.’s Group B: Z100, 3M Dental Products, St.Paul. U.S.A.
Institute of Dental Sciences, Belgaum, Karnataka, India Group C: F2000, 3M Dental Products, St.Paul, U.S.A.

15 J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent - March 2006

 Microleakage of restorative materials
The specimens were stored in distilled water for twenty four
hours. After this the teeth were subjected to thermocycling.
Temperatures used were 12°C + 2 and 60°C + 2. The time
used for the alternate immersion of specimens in hot and
cold solutions was one minute. The restorations were sub­
jected to 1500 cycles. Two coats of nail polish were applied
to all tooth surfaces except for 1mm around the restora­
tion. The apices were sealed with sticky wax. The teeth were
subjected to a dye solution of 50% silver nitrate (Ranbaxy
Ind. Ltd.) in small, dark closed bottles for 4 hours and kept
away from light. After this the teeth were then immersed in
a photographic film developing solution (D76, Kodak Ind.
Ltd.) for 4 hours under 200 watt bulb. The light source was
as close as possible to the specimens. After dye exposure,
the teeth were cleaned under running tap water for 5 min­
utes and the nail polish was removed with scalpel. Teeth
were then sectioned buccolingually with the section divid­
ing the restoration at its midpoint mesiodistally creating
two test specimens with exposure of the tooth interface
from the cavosurface margin to the pulpal wall. The speci­
mens were observed under stereomicroscope with a mag­
nification of 10x and the degree of marginal leakage was
determined by the criteria described by Khera and Chan[12]
as follows
0º=No leakage
1º=Less than and upto one half of the depth of the cavity
preparation was penetrated by the dye
2º=More than one half of the depth of the cavity prepara­
tion was penetrated by the dye but not upto the junction of
the axial and occlusal or cervical wall.
3º=Dye penetration was upto the junction of the axial and
occlusal or cervical wall but did not include the axial wall.
4º=Dye penetration included the axial wall
Dye penetration was evaluated by a single observer. Data
was subjected to statistical analysis to compare the
microleakage around Fuji2, Z100 and F2000. For each group
the values of mean and standard deviation were calculated.
To find whether the microleakage in the three groups is
homogenous, analysis of variance was conducted. To find
between which two groups there was significant difference
in the leakage, unpaired ‘t’ test was conducted.
Results
Within Group A the values of degree of microleakage ranged
incisally between 1 to 4. Smilar observations were found
for gingival wall with more number of samples showing 4th
degree of microleakage [Table 1].
Group B illustrated 0 degree or no microleakage for three
samples at the incisal margin. Rest of the samples showed
mild marginal leakage of 1 degree. Within the same group
gingival margin showed 2 degree of microleakage for the
samples.
J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent - March 2006
Group C showed 1 degree of microleakage incisally in all
the ten samples. Gingivally it showed 1 degree of
microleakage with almost all samples except in two samples it
depicted 2 degrees and 4 degrees of microleakage [Table 2].
Fuji2 has the highest microleakage with a mean of 2.9 and
standard deviation 1.4491 followed by Z100 with a mean of
2.4 and standard deviation 0.8433. F2000 showed the least
microleakage with a mean of 1.4 and standard deviation
0.9661 [Table 3]
Analysis of variance test showed that the leakage was not
homogenous amongst the three groups [Table 4].
The results of ‘t’ test showed that there is a significant dif­
ference in microleakage between Z100 and F2000 (P<0.05)
and Fuji2 and F2000 (P<0.05). Fuji2 and Z100 showed no
significant difference in the microleakage between them
[Table 5].
Discussion
There is a constant search for the material and technique
that ensures adhesion to the tooth structure in order to
minimize the leakage potential. Microleakage is used as a
measure by which clinicians and researchers can predict the
performance of a restorative material. The present study
was designed to evaluate the sealing properties of Glass
ionomer cement (Fuji2, Group A). Composite (Z100, Group
B) and Glass ionomer resin cement (F2000, Group C) and
was based on the primise that no available restorative ma­
terial is perfectly adaptable to the tooth structure.
Standardised Class five cavities to a size of 3x2x 2mm were
prepared with high speed air rotar and water spray coolant.
In the present study no attempt was made to correlate the
results with instrumentation. It is possible that some ob­
served variations in the individual experimental groups may
have resulted from differences in the texture of cut surface.[3]
They were restored with the various experimental materials
used in the study according to the manufacturers instruc­
tions. After restoration, the teeth were subjected to
thermocycling. Thermocycling is the invitro process of sub­
jecting the restoration on the tooth to temperature extremes
compatible with the oral cavity. This stimulates introduc­
tion of hot and cold extremes in the oral cavity and shows
the relationship between coefficient of thermal expansion
between the tooth and restorative material.[4] The silver ni­
trate technique of detecting the microleakage is an accept­
able technique of studying microleakage.[5,6] The silver ion
is extremely small 0.059 nm when compared to a typical
bacterium which is 0.5-0.1 µm.Therefore, it is more pen­
etrative and hence a severe test of a material to prevent its
ingress through microcrevices. In this study fifty percent sil­
ver nitrate was used to immerse the invitro model which
later was reacted with photographic developing solution.
16
 Microleakage of restorative materials

Table 1: Microleakage of the three materials used

Specimen No.
Incisal
1 1
2 1
3 4
4 2
5 4
6 1
7 1
8 1
9 1
10 4 4
Group A Group B Group C
Gingival Incisal Gingival Incisal Gingival
1 1 2 1 2
1 0 2 1 1
4 0 4 1 1
4 0 2 1 1
4 1 2 1 1
4 1 2 1 1
1 1 2 1 1
4 1 2 1 4
2 1 4 1 1
1 2 1 1

Table 2: Maximum score of micro leakage of three Table 5: ‘t’ values for comparison between various groups
materials used
Between ‘t’ value
Specimen No Group A Group B Group C Fuji II and Z 100 0.943 NS
1. 1 2 2 Z 100 and F 2000 2.466*
2. 1 2 1 Fuji II and F 2000 2.7235*
3. 4 4 1 NS = Not significant, * = Significant ( P < 0.05)
4. 4 2 1
5. 4 2 1
6. 4 2 1
cement is found to be lower than adhesive strength. The
7. 1 2 1 porous nature of the material may be an important factor
8. 4 2 4 that enhances potential for microleakage. Though removal
9. 2 4 1 of smear layer was considered while using Fuji2 the results
10. 4 2 1
from this study showed that it did not decrease the
Table 3: Mean and standard deviation in different groups
microleakage.[6,10,11] However, Welsh Edward, Bullard Harrell
in their study found that glass ionomer cement showed mini­
Mean SD
Fuji II (Gr. A) 2.9 1.4491
mum leakage.[12,13]
Z 100 (Gr B) 2.4 0.8433
F 2000 (Gr.C) 1.4 0.9661 Composite (Z100) showed moderate leakage (mean 2.4, stan­
dard deviation 0.8433). Stereomicroscope photographs
After the teeth were sectioned they were observed for leak­ showed that the leakage does not extend upto the axial wall
age under stereomicroscope at 10x magnification [Figure 1­ but stops where the glass ionomer liner is placed. Light cure
3]. Upon examining the samples under stereomicroscope, glass ionomer liner beneath composite may have reduced
the restoration exhibiting the least leakage at the gingival the leakage of composite[14] especially at gingival aspect.
margin was F2000.[6-8] This observation may be due to the However,[15] found no difference in the microleakage when
product being made up of carboxylated methacrylate resin liner was not used. Microfilled composites show moderate
and fluoroalluminosilicate glass filler. As with popular den­ leakage because of the particle size which improves the flow
tal composite, the current compomers also set by light initi­ of the material due to improved viscosity and hence better
ated polymerization and are one part paste packaged pri­ adaptability.[16] Also the water sorption of these materials is
marily in capsules. Its composition is such that it contains greater which compensates for polymerisation shrinkage[17]
both adhesive and primer in a single component and hence, which is attributed to less filler content. Visible light curing
it is considered to have good handling characteristics. systems and the use of bonding agents have greatly reduced
the toxicity level of resin composite restorations in terms of
Maximum leakage was observed for Fuji2 (mean 2.9, stan­ pulpal responses.
dard deviation 1.6691) being attributed to the inherent na­
ture of the material itself. Stereomicroscope photographs 1) Fuji2 showed maximum leakage (mean 2.9, standard de­
have shown the texture of Fuji2 as granulated with many viation 1.4491) with leakage extending to the axial wall.
cracks and air voids.[9] The cohesive strength of glass ionomer 2) Z100 showed minimum leakage at the incisal wall

Table 4: Analysis of variance summary table comparing material to marginal leakage

Source of Variation Sum of Degree of Mean sum of F ratio at 5% level of
squares freedom squares significance
Between materials 11.6667 2 5.8334 4.6736
Within Materials 33.7 27 1.2481
Total S.S 45.3667 29

17 J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent - March 2006

 Microleakage of restorative materials
Figure 1: Photograph showing leakage in Group A (Fuji II)
Figure 2: Photograph showing leakage in Group B (Z100).
Figure 3: Photograph showing leakage in Group C (F2000)
whereas it showed moderate leakage at the gingival wall
(mean 2.4, standard deviation 0.8433).
J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent - March 2006 18
3) F2000 showed the best results with minimum leakage
extending just beyond the enamel dentin junction (mean
1.4, standard deviation 0.9661).
4) There is a significant difference in microleakage between
Z100 and F2000 (P<0.05) and Fuji2 and F2000 (P<0.05).
Fuji2 and Z100 showed no significant difference in the
microleakage between them.
References
1. Kidd Edwina AM. Microleakage in relation to amalgam and
composite restorations: a laboratory study. Br Dental J
1976;141:305–10.
2. Khera SC, Kai CC. Microleakage and enamel finish. J Prosthet
Dentist 1978;39:414–9.
3. Swartz ML, Phillips RW. In vitro studies on the marginal leakage
of restorative materials. J Am Dent Assoc 1961;62:141–5.
4. Crim GA, Swartz ML, Phillips RW. Comparison of four
thermocycling techniques. J Prosthet Dentist 1985;53:50–3.
5. Kanca Jr III. The effect of microleakage of four dentin–enamel
bonding systems. Quint Int 1989;20:359–61.
6. Erdilek Necdet, Ferit Ozata, Figen Sepetcioglu. Microleakage of
glass ionomer cement, composite resin and glass ionomer resin
cement. J Clin Pediatr Dentist 1997;21:311–4.
7. Morabito A, Defabianis P. Marginal seal of various restorative
materials in primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dentist 1997;22:51–
4.
8. Brackett William W, Gunnin TD, Gilpatrick RO, Browning WD.
Microleakage of class V compomer and light cured glass ionomer
restorations. J Prosthet Dentist 1998;79:261–3.
9. Fuks AB, Zvia Hirschfeld, Rafael Grajower. Marginal adaptation
of glass ionomer cements. J Prosthet Dentist 1983;49:3:356–
60.
10. Alperstein KS, Heber T, Graver, Richard Herold CB. Marginal
leakage of glass ionomer cement restorations. J Prosthet Dentist
1983;50:6:803–7.
11. Srisawsdi S, Boyer DB, Reinhardt JW. The effect of removal of
the smear layer on microleakage of class V restorations in vitro.
Dent Mat 1988;4:384–9.
12. Walsh EL, Hembree JH. Microleakage at the gingival wall with
four class V anterior restorative materials. J Prosthet Dentist
1985;54:370–2.
13. Bullard Harrell, Leinfelder F, Russell M. Effect of coefficient of
thermal expansion on microleakage. J Am Dent Assoc
1988;116:871–4.
14. Mathis RS, DeWald JP, Moody CR, Ferracane JL. Marginal
leakage in class V composite resin restoration with glass ionomer
liners in vitro. J Prosthet Dentist 1990;63:522–4.
15. Holtan JR, Nystrom GP, Douglas WH, Phelps RA 2 nd .
Microleakage and marginal placement of a glass ionomer liner.
Quint Int 1990;21:117–22.
16. Crim GA. Assesment of microleakage of twelve restorative
systems. Quint Int 1987;18:419–21.
17. Crim GA. Influence of bonding agents and composites on
microleakage. J Prosthet Dentist 1989;61:571–4.
Reprint requests to:
Shobha Deshpande,
Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry,
D. Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital,
Nerul, Navi Mumbai, India