Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 23, 2025

Confocal Time Lapse Imaging as an Efficient Method for the Cytocompatibility Evaluation of Dental Composites
Published on: November 9, 2014
Comparative evaluation of microleakage of four restorative materials using confocal laser scanning microscopy: an in
Annapoorna Kini1, Kavana M G1, Shubhashini N1
1Rajarajeswari Dental College & Hospital, No.14, Ramohalli Cross, Kumbalgodu, Bengaluru, 560 074, India.
Objective:
Understanding the sealing ability of restorative materials to prevent microleakage and its consequent complications-such as secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, and restoration failure-is imperative in clinical dentistry. This study aims to compare the microleakage performance of four restorative materials-bioactive composite resin (Activa Pronto), alkasite restorative (Cention N), compomer (Dyract Flow), and glass ionomer cement (Type 2 GIC)-in Class V cavities of extracted premolar teeth.
Materials And Methods:
Forty non-carious, intact premolar teeth were selected and prepared with standardized Class V cavities. The teeth were randomly assigned to one of four groups (n = 10) and restored with the respective materials. The restorations underwent thermocycling, followed by microleakage testing using rhodamine dye. Confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM), a technique that provides superior depth resolution and three-dimensional visualization of microleakage, was used to assess dye penetration at the tooth-restoration interface. Microleakage was then scored using a standardized grading system.
Results:
Significant differences in microleakage were observed among the groups (χ2 = 45.69; p < 0.001). Group 1 (bioactive composite resin) demonstrated the lowest microleakage, with predominantly Grade 0 and Grade 1 scores, while Group 4 (GIC) exhibited the highest microleakage, characterized mainly by Grade 3 scores. Bioactive composite resin exhibited significantly lower microleakage than alkasite, compomer, and GIC (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed between alkasite and compomer.
Conclusions:
Bioactive composite resin (Activa Pronto) provided the most effective seal against microleakage, followed by alkasite and compomer, with glass ionomer cement showing the least effective sealing properties.
More Related Videos
09:44Oral Biofilm Analysis of Palatal Expanders by Fluorescence In-Situ Hybridization and Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy
Published on: October 20, 2011
07:42Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024