Scientific Online Resource System

Scripta Scientifica Medicinae Dentalis

Evaluation of microleakage of giomer and silorane based resins - in vitro study

Mirela Borislavova Marinova-Takorova, Dobrina Karayasheva, Ekaterina Boteva


Introduction: Despite of the significant improvement, methacrylate-based composites still exhibit polymerization stress forces, which could lead to damages in adhesion to tooth structures and microleakege, postoperative sensitivity and secondary caries. The aim of this study was to compare the microleakage at the interface between cavity walls and giomer and silorane-based composite material restorations.

Material and methods: Eighteen extracted human teeth were used in this study. Two types of cavities were prepared on each tooth. The teeth were randomly assigned in two groups, each one with 9 teeth (18 cavities).

The first group was restored with the giomer Beautiful II and the second one with Filtec Silorane. The samples were subjected to 400 thermo cycles. The teeth were immersed in a 2% methylene blue buffered solution for 24 hours and rinsed under running tap water for 24 hours. They were hemi-sectioned longitudinally bucco-lingually through the center of the restoration and mycroleakage analysis was done.

Results: None of the tested materials was without any microleakage. The average microleakage scores for the giomer were 0.72±0.83 (type I cavities - 1.00±0.87; type II cavities - 0.44±0.73) and for the silorane - 0.33±0.69 (type I cavities - 0.56±0.88; type II cavities - 0.11±0.3.3).

Conclusion: Based on the data obtained from the present study it can be concluded that silorane-based composite revealed less microleakage compared to the giomer. The cavities with smaller sizes revealed less microleakage as was expected in our null hypothesis.


microleakage; silorane; giomer

Full Text


Silva e Souza MH Jr, KGK Carneiro, MF Lobato, AR Silva e Souza, MF de Goes: Adhesive systems: important aspects related to their composition and clinical use. J Appl Oral Sci 2010;18(3):207-214.

Sarode GS, SC Sarode. Abfraction: a review. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2013;17(2):222-227.

Ausiello P, A Apicella, CL Davidson. Effect of adhesive layer properties on stress distribution in composite restorations - a3D finite element analysis. Dent Mater. 2002;18(4):295-303.

Müllejans R, H Lang, N Shüler, MO Baldawi, WH Raab. Increment technique for extended class V restorations: an experimental study. Oper Dent. 2003;28(4):352-356.

Hofmann N, O Hilti, B Hugo, B Klaiber. Guidance of shrinkage vectors vs irradiation at reduced intensity for improving marginal seal of class V resin-based composite restorations in vitro. Oper Dent. 2002;27(5):510-515.

Manuja N. et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of various esthetic restorative materials to dentin: An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2011;29(1):7-13.

McCabe JF, S Rusby: Water absorption, dimentional change and radial pressure in resin matrix dental restorative materials. Biomaterials. 2004;25(18):4001-4007.

Naoum S, E Martin, A Ellakwa. Long-term fluoride exchanges at restoration surfaces and effects on surface mechanical properties. ISRN Dent. 2013 Aug 19;2013:579039. doi: 10.1155/2013/579039. eCollection 2013.

Yantcheva S. Silorane-based composite resin - composition, properties and analysis of the latest peer-reviewed reports. Dental medicine. 2012;94(1):53-59.

Eick JD, SP Kotha, CC Chappelow, KV Kilway, GJ Giese, AG Glaros. Properties of silorane based resins and composites containing a stress reducing monomer. Dent Mater. 2007;23(8):1011-1017.

Ilie N, Hickel R. Silorane-based dental composite: Behavior and abilities. Dent Mater. 2006;25(3):445-454.

Bogra P, S Gupta, S Kumar. Comparative evaluation of microleakage in class II cavities restored with Ceram X and Filtek P-90: An in vitro study. ContempClin Dent. 2012;3(1):9-14.

Feilzer AJ, De Gee, CL Davidson. Quantitative determination of stress reduction by flow in composite restorations. Dent Mater 1990;6(3):167-171.

Ernst CP, P Galler, B Willershausen, B Haller. Marginal integrity of class V restorations: SEM versus dye penetration. Dent Mater 2008;24(3):319-327.

Umer F, F Naz, FR Khan. An in vitro evaluation of microleakage in class V preparations restored with hybrid versus sylorane composites. J Conserv Dent. 2011;14(2);103-107.

Krifka S, M Federlin, KA Hiller, G Shmalz: Microleakage of silorane- and methacrylate-based class V composite restoration. Clin Oral Invest. 2012;16(4):1117-1124.

Al-Boni R, OM Raja. Microleakage evaluation of silorane based composite versus methacrylate-based composite. J Conserv Dent. 2010;13(3):152-155.

Yantcheva S, R. Vasileva. In vitro investigation of marginal adaptation and microleakage of class II conventional and matrix-modified composite resin rstorations. Dental Medicine. 2013;95(1):19-28.



About The Authors

Mirela Borislavova Marinova-Takorova
Medical university of Sofia

Department of conservative dentistry, Faculty of dental medicine

Dobrina Karayasheva
Medical university of Sofia

Department of conservative dentistry, Faculty of dental medicine

Ekaterina Boteva
Medical university of Sofia

Department of conservative dentistry, Faculty of dental medicine

Font Size