Aim: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the microleakage of three different restorative cements, namely zirconomer, amalgomer CR, and conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC, type II).

Materials and methods: The present in vitro study was carried out in the Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Hitkarini Dental College & Hospital, Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh, India) in collaboration with the Department of Biotechnology, Nanaji Deshmukh University of Veterinary Science, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India, and Excellent Bio Research Solutions Private Limited (Daksh Laboratories), Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. A total of 45 human noncarious primary molars were selected. The selected teeth were extracted for the reason of overretention or orthodontic purpose. Total samples were divided into three groups: 15 samples in each group?group I: zirconomer (Shofu Inc., Kyoto, Japan), group II: amalgomer CR (Advance Health Care, Ltd., Tonbridge, UK), and group III: conventional GIC (Medicept Type II, Ltd., India). Hand scalers were used to remove calculus if present on the root surface and the teeth were stored in glass container containing normal saline. In all the samples class I cavity was prepared on the occlusal surfaces of the extracted noncarious primary molars using high-speed hand piece. From the previously divided three groups, i.e., groups I, II, and III, each group contains 15 teeth. All teeth were restored with either of the three restorative materials. Restored samples from the three groups were then subjected to thermocycling. The teeth were immersed in an aqueous solution of methylene blue for 48 hours and then sectioned longitudinally in a buccolingual direction through the center of both cavities using a low-speed diamond saw. The dye penetration depth along the occlusal margin was evaluated for each group. Dye penetration scores were analyzed by two calibrated and blinded evaluators. The mean value of the two was evaluated and recorded for statistical analysis.
The scoring for microleakage assessment was done as described by Prabhakar et al.

Scoring criteria:

  • 0 = No dye penetration
  • 1 = Dye penetration between the restoration and the tooth into enamel and dentin
  • 2 = Dye penetration between the restoration and the tooth in the enamel and dentin
  • 3 = Dye penetration between the restoration and the tooth into pulp chamber
Results: The data were analyzed with nonparametric test (Kruskal?Wallis test; p < 0.005). There was no significant difference between the three restorative cements. The results showed that conventional GIC exhibited (type II) least microleakage than that of zirconomer, amalgomer CR, and maximum with zirconomer. Amalgomer CR exhibited more microleakage than conventional GIC.

Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, none of the material was free from microleakage. Although the new materials have certain advantage of strength, they lack microleakage.

Keywords: Amalgomer CR, Conventional glass ionomer, Microleakage, Zirconomer.

How to cite this article: Kathal S, Bhayya DP, Gupta S, Rao A, Pal A, Saxena ST. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Zirconomer, Amalgomer CR, and Conventional Glass Ionomer (Type II) as Restorative Cements in Primary Teeth: An in vitro Study. Int J Oral Care Res 2017;5(3):376-382.

Source of support: Nil

Conflict of interest: None