34 for MacOSX, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland). The microleakage value for each section was obtained by calculating the mean dye penetration along the buccal and lingual restoration margins.19 Finally, the microleakage of each tooth specimen U0126 price was recorded by calculating the mean microleakage values of the 3 sections. Statistical Analysis Statistical comparisons of the dye penetration values were made using Kruskal-Wallis and Conover��s multiple comparison tests at P=.05. RESULTS The microleakage values of the test groups are presented in Table 1. All test materials exhibited dye penetration along the tooth-restoration interface. The greatest amount of dye leakage was observed in uncoated glass carbomer specimens (Conover��s multiple comparison test, P<.05).

This was followed by the uncoated glass ionomer group (Table 1, P<.05). The dye penetration values of the coated glass ionomer were greater than those of the coated glass carbomer and compomer (Table 1). However, there was no significant difference between the latter 3 groups (P>.05). The following statistical ranking was observed among microleakage values of the test materials (Conover��s multiple comparison test, P=.05): uncoated glass carbomer > uncoated glass ionomer > coated glass ionomer �� coated glass carbomer �� compomer. Table 1 Microleakage values (mm) obtained in the study. Representative micrographs depicting microleakage along the tooth-restoration interface are presented in Figure 1. All the specimens of uncoated glass carbomer exhibited oblique and vertical ice crack-like lines that extend from the restoration surface toward the cavity floor (Figures 1A and 1B).

Depending on the level of sectioning, some of those lines are presented as internal cracks. In some specimens, the crack ends at the occlusal surface even exhibited minute amounts of material loss (Figure 1A). Surface cracks were also evident in uncoated GIC specimens (Figure 1C), but to a lesser extent. Figure 1 Examples of microleakage in the test groups. A and B: glass carbomer (GC) without surface protection (SP); C: glass ionomer cement (GIC) without SP; D: GIC with SP; E: GC with SP; F: compomer. Note the presence of ice crack-like lines in uncoated specimens … DISCUSSION Conventional GICs are moisture-sensitive restorative materials.

During the setting stage, both water uptake and water loss can compromise Dacomitinib the physical properties and marginal sealing of the restoration.20 Thus, following the placement of GIC, surface protection must be provided to maintain the water balance of restorations for the first 24 h.20 Among several surface coating agents tested to date (e.g., cocoa butter, waterproof varnish, and even nail varnish),21,23 light-polymerized resin adhesives have shown to provide an effective surface protection and improve marginal sealing.