Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology

The aim of the study was to compare and evaluate the micro-leakage of composite resin restoration, Glass Ionomer cement restoration and traditional amalgam restoration using Streptococcus mutans.

In this study 40 single rooted lower premolar teeth were used. All the samples were made it 10*5 mm cylinders by cutting the coronal and apical portion of the teeth. The orifice were cleaned and shaped using rotary instrument (ProTaper system). A standard 2*2mm cubical cavity was made in the occusal aspect of the prepared teeth which was 1.5mm deep, composite, amalgam and GIC restorations were done. Each of the tooth were fixed to a plastic tube using a sealant were there restored portion of the teeth will be within the tube and the apical part of the tube is outside the tube. Sterilized twice in the autoclave at 121°C for 30minutes. Each tube containing the teeth was transferred to a test tube containing nutrient broth. This is made to visually monitor the leakage if the broth turnsturbid. Then 2ml of nutrient broth was added to each of the plastic tubes and 50 μl of Streptococcus mutans suspension prepared was added to the nutrient broth in the plastic tube containing the tooth and left for incubation at 37°C for 24 hrs. The nutrient broth in the test tube was checked regularly at every 2 hours’ time for the turbidity.

Three restorations namely Glass Ionomer cement, amalgam and Composite restoration were compared, the amalgam restoration had the least micro leakage followed by composite restoration. Glass Ionomer cement had the maximum leakage when compared to the other groups.

In this in vitro study traditional amalgam restoration though less flexible and unaesthetic still prove to be stronger and has reduced micro leakage when compared to modern cements like glass Ionomer cement and composite resin which have less chair side time, ease of use and aesthetically appealing appearances.