1Associate Professor, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Dental College Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, India
2Professor and Head, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Career Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
3Professor, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Career Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
4Associate Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Peoples’ College of Dental Sciences, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
5Associate Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dental College Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, India
6Associate Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Institute of Dental Studies and Technologies, Kadrabad, Modinagar, Uttar Pradesh, India
*Corresponding author: Dr Shweta Singh, MDS Associate Professor, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Dental College Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, India, Email: singh.paedo@gmail.com, Cell: +91 945 323 9101
Online published on 15 February, 2017.
The present study was conducted to evaluate and compare the microleakage of glass ionomer, modified glass ionomer, compomer and nanocomposite in class v cavities made in sixty intact caries free premolars. Teeth were restored with respective restorative materials, thermocycled and subjected to dye penetration followed by sectioning. Microleakage was evaluated under a stereomicroscope and data subjected to statistical analysis. The study concluded that microleakage was evident in all tested restorative material with modified glass ionomer showing maximum microleakage followed by compomer, glass ionomer and nanocomposite. Nanocomposite shows the best result with minimum microleakage.
Nanoceramic composite, modified glass ionomer, Glass ionomer, Compomer, Microleakage
