Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluates interface characteristics of glass-based restoratives in sound and caries-affected primary dentin, indicating differences in microleakage.
The aim was to evaluate the interface zone between glass hybrid (GH), high-viscosity (HV), and resin-modified (RM) glass-ionomer cements (GIC) and sound (SD) and artificially created caries-affected (ACAD) primary dentin. Occlusal cavities were prepared in 120 extracted primary molars and randomly assigned to SD or ACAD. Samples were restored with GH (Equia Forte HT-EF), HV-GIC (Equia Fill-E; Ketac Molar-KM), or RM-GIC (Fuji-II LC-FII; Photac Fill-PF) and exposed to thermal aging. Microleakage (methylene-blue) was analyzed using an optical digital microscope. The interface between dental tissues and restorative materials was analyzed using a scanning electron (SE) microscope. SE microphotographs were manually annotated for intimate contact and cracks/gaps at the material-enamel/dentin interface and analyzed using a custom Python-based algorithm to quantify the respective percentages. No microleakage was noted only in the SD group for EF (50%), FII (42%), and E (33%). All materials showed higher microleakage in ACAD than SD (p < 0.05). No continuous intimate contact between restorative material and dental tissues was observed along the entire interface. The mean proportion of intimate contact between the material and SD was EF (76%) > KM (55%) > E (38%) > FII (7%) > PF (4%), and EF (32%) > KM (24%) > E (16%) > FII (15%) > PF (0%) for ACAD (p < 0.05). Caries-induced demineralization affects the quality of the material–dentin interface. GH are likely to provide better sealing compared to the previous generations of GI materials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vulović et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: