JIOH on LinkedIn JIOH on Facebook
  • Users Online: 36
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 141-145

Review of microleakage evaluation tools


Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, KSA

Date of Web Publication21-Aug-2017

Correspondence Address:
AlHanouf Abdullah AlHabdan
Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, King Saud University, P. O. Box: 54326, Riyadh 11415
KSA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jioh.jioh_160_17

Get Permissions

  Abstract 

The advancement of restorative materials and techniques continues to enhance the clinical success of numerous restorative procedures. Despite these new innovations, microleakage persists as one of the main causes of restoration failure. Microleakage tests provide useful information on the performance of restorative materials, and different techniques for assessing microleakage have been developed and used. These tests include the use of dyes, radioactive isotopes, air pressure, bacteria, neutron activation analysis, and artificial caries. However, little has been done to determine the cause, mechanism, and nature of microleakage. Therefore, this review outlines and discusses the currently available microleakage assessment tools.

Keywords: Dye penetration, in vitro, microleakage, tools


How to cite this article:
AlHabdan AA. Review of microleakage evaluation tools. J Int Oral Health 2017;9:141-5

How to cite this URL:
AlHabdan AA. Review of microleakage evaluation tools. J Int Oral Health [serial online] 2017 [cited 2017 Nov 21];9:141-5. Available from: http://www.jioh.org/text.asp?2017/9/4/141/213497


  Introduction Top


The advancement of restorative materials and techniques continues to enhance the clinical success of numerous restorative procedures. Despite these new innovations, microleakage persists as one of the main causes of restoration failure. Microleakage is the movement of bacteria, fluids, molecules, and/or ions between the tooth and restoration margins.[1] Microleakage is a result of the external environment invasion through the margins of the restoration which also can occur internally.[2],[3] Microleakage can cause a variety of adverse effects, such as secondary caries, higher sensitivity of the restored tooth, and interfacial staining leading to pulp pathology.[4],[5] Microleakage most commonly occurs when the gingival margin of any restoration is placed below the cementoenamel junction because bonding to dentin is less predictable than enamel due to its complex pattern and lower mineral content.[1],[4],[6]

Another type of leakage, known as nanoleakage, has also been described. Nanoleakage is defined as when fluids move through the bonding between dentin and restorative resin.[7] It is mainly caused by dentin acid etching that can provide a way for oral and dentinal fluids penetration into the hybrid layer.[8] The amount of this penetration depends on several factors such as type and hydrophilicity of the bonding agent and the application technique. Nanoleakage within the hybrid layer and adhesive–resin interface is an important indicator of a material's sealing ability and the quality of the hybrid layer, which in turn affects the longevity of the restoration.[9],[10]

Microleakage assays provide useful information on the performance of restorative materials. Different techniques for assessing microleakage have been developed and used. These tests which use dyes, radioactive isotopes, air pressure, bacterial activity, neutron activation analysis, scanning electron microscope, dye penetration, and microcomputed tomography (μCT) all come with both advantages and drawbacks.[11] Some of the older methods are no longer used because they do not represent the true nature of microleakage.[12]

It is well known that microleakage affects the health of the dental pulp and can cause pain, sensitivity, and discomfort.[2] However, little is known about the cause, mechanism, and nature of microleakage. Therefore, this review outlines and discusses currently available microleakage assessment tools.


  Discussion Top


Several factors are associated with microleakage, such as polymerization shrinkage, which leads to dimensional changes of the material, thermal contraction, water absorption, mechanical forces, as well as the changes in tooth structure dimensions.[13] After polymerization, composite resin shrinks to a considerable amount which creates stresses at the restoration margins and thus gaps and microleakage occur.[14] Moreover, the adaptation of any bonded restorative depends mainly on the shape of the cavity and number of walls bonded (the C-factor).[15] The coefficient of thermal expansion is another contributing factor to the occurrence of microleakage. Notably, the coefficient of thermal expansion for enamel and dentin is far less than that of composite resin restorations.[13]

Leakage is typically evaluated with in vitro models rather than in vivo methods, which can be qualitative as well as quantitative.[16] The clinical performance of any new dental restorative material can only be tested first using in vitro models. Theoretically, these findings can be transferred to the clinical environment.[17]

In the literature, in vitro studies use only 10–12 samples per group, which may affect the power of the study statistically.[18] The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has established guidelines for studying the physical properties of dental materials, such as flexural strength, water sorption, and solubility (ISO/TS 11405: 2003, Dental Materials).[19] For microleakage tests, the guidelines emphasize the need to standardize tooth quality, type of cavity preparation, and method used to evaluate microleakage at the margin.[18] New evaluation tools, such as μCT, can detect microleakage in vivo.[11]

Leakage tests can be subdivided into old and contemporary methods. Old methods were used to test the presence of gaps and the sealing ability of different restorative materials. These methods included air pressure, fluid filtration, electrochemistry, neutron activation, bacteria, and artificial caries.[11] However, these techniques were found to be nonrepresentative of leakage and thus have been replaced by more contemporary methods.

Contemporary methods

Radioisotope method

A broad range of radioactive isotopes have been used in microleakage studies, including the markers 45 Ca,131 I,35 S,22 Na,32 P,86 Rb, and 14 C. Generally, autoradiography is used to detect the leakage of isotopes at the restoration margins interface of a sectioned specimen.[20],[21],[22],[23]

Isotopes can penetrate gaps equal to or larger than 40 nm, which is higher than the minimum detectable range of bacteria-based studies. In addition, isotopes appear to be better at demonstrating microleakage than dye penetration tests.[24] On the other hand, this technique requires the use of radiation, and the obtained autoradiograph does not represent microleakage as a three-dimensional (3D) image.

Acetate peel technique

Füsun et al. described the acetate peel technique as a rapid method for preparing many sequential replicas from an etched tooth surface to study dental hard tissue. Acetate films can be used to imprint the etched tooth surface at a micron scale resolution, which gives an overall view of the tooth structure and microleakage at the interface.[25]

Mohapatra and Sivakumar reported that the acetate peel technique is a simple, inexpensive, and fast method for measuring microleakage. Moreover, peels are stable and can be preserved for further evaluation. However, the peel technique is delicate, which may produce artifacts that can be misinterpreted.[17]

Dye penetration

The staining of microleakage and nanoleakage using colored agents is the most commonly used technique. Dye penetration method involves the use of contrasting dyes as an immersion solution to stain the areas of microleakage, and then the tooth–restoration interface is examined for evidence of staining. Notably, the most commonly used solutions are 0.5% basic fuchsin, 2% methylene blue, and 50% silver nitrate.[26]

The dye penetration assay has many advantages over other techniques. First, no reactive chemicals are used along with no radiation.[27] Second, different dye solutions are available; therefore, the technique is highly feasible and easily reproducible.[28]

The current studies have failed to clearly establish which dyes are suitable for use with microleakage test as some of the dyes can react with dentin such as basic fuchsin.[29] Another important issue with dye penetration methods is the particle size of the used dye which could affect the reliability of the test.[26]

Wu and Cobb [30] used silver nitrate because the strong optical contrast of silver particles is easily detected using microscopy. Silver nitrate staining is the most commonly used material for nanoleakage evaluation as it easily penetrates the interface zone due to its extremely small diameter (0.059 nm). Following its penetration, silver nitrate molecules can become immobile, which prevents further penetration during specimen preparation. Silver nitrate was used to verify the discrepancy between the depth of the demineralized zone and monomer diffusion, which is caused by the presence of water around collagen fibrils (nanoleakage).[31]

Some authors reported possible problems arising from the use of 50% silver nitrate solutions or higher and recommended the need to seal the specimens to ensure no other sources of silver nitrate penetration. Moreover, a 24-h immersion in silver nitrate decreased the pH to approximately 3.8.[31] In a study by Costa et al., a 24-h immersion in an aqueous solution of 5% silver nitrate was sufficient to detect a loss of the marginal seal in composite restorations.[32]

Assessing a single section of the tooth is not representative because dye penetration varies from one area to another. Thus, multiple-surface scoring methods are regarded as superior to single-surface scoring methods because the results are more representative of the leakage pattern.[33] Raskin et al. recommended the utilization of three sections for each restoration to accurately evaluate leakage.[34] Another technique introduced by Gale and Darvell [35] involves grinding of the specimen into sequential slices and then reconstruction of the images by the use of computer software. The authors stated that “3D techniques reveal markedly greater microleakage than 2D assessments.”[35] Moreover, Majety and Pujar [36] recommended completely removing restorations to assess the total amount of microleakage because leakage can vary at different aspects of the cavity. The dye penetration method requires an adequate evaluation tool to determine the true extent of microleakage.[11] Light microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and transmission electron microscopy are widely used. However, recent methods to better evaluate leakage include 3D methods, such as μCT 1072, confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM), and optical coherence tomography (OCT).

Three-dimensional methods

The 3D analysis was first used by Gale et al.[37] The technique involves the production of sequential slices of the samples using a water-cooled wire saw in 200-μm thick and separated by 280 μm. Specialized computer software is then used to reconstruct the images and create 3D models. Then, the surface area of dye leakage as well as volume of leakage is calculated manually. 3D analysis was found to give more accurate information than 2D analysis as the samples are examined thoroughly.[38] However, the method is highly subjective and destructive. The samples are destroyed during the sequential grinding and slicing procedure. Moreover, this slicing can affect the restoration tested and thus alter the results.[39]

Microcomputed tomography

μCT is a modified version of medical computed tomography that creates a 3D visualization of dental structures without destruction.[40] μCT starts from a set of 2D images taken along the rotational axis, which is then transferred to a computer program that produces a 3D image of the sample. These 3D reconstructions have a resolution of a few microns. One of the important features of μCT is that the 3D reconstruction can be sectioned in any direction to gain accurate information of the sample's internal geometric properties and structural parameters.[41] Moreover, μCT results in a precise 3D reconstruction of the sample.[42] Burghardt et al.[43] and Ibrahim et al.[44] recommended μCT as the gold standard for assessing bone morphology and microarchitectures.

De Santis et al. was the first to use μCT in a microleakage evaluation study.[45] This technique was also been used to evaluate mechanically stressed dentin and adhesive–composite interfaces as well as detect marginal leakage at the restoration–tooth interface in vivo. One of the main advantages of μCT is that the 2D section information is maintained; thus, all margins are available for visual inspection.[46],[47] In addition, μCT was suggested by Özkan et al.[48] as an alternative method to histological examination for in vitro studies. Eden et al.[49] evaluated the reliability of a marginal leakage assessment of self-etch adhesive Class II resin composite restorations in primary molars prepared in vivo using μCT. These authors concluded that μCT could be used to develop a standardized method for measuring marginal leakage from in vivo samples. In combination with a 4-h immersion in 50% silver nitrate, the marginal leakage along the restoration–tooth interface was accurately and reliably measured.[49] However, μCT alone is not a substitute for the histological examination of leakage in in vitro samples.[50]

Confocal laser scanning microscopy

CLSM is used to detect subsurface structures up to 100 μm in size without sample destruction.[51] Tangsgoolwatana et al.[52] compared the degree and pattern of microleakage in bonded amalgam restorations treated with fluorescent dyes and a 45 Ca radioisotope using CLSM and autoradiography, respectively. The authors reported a high correlation between the results of the fluorescent and radioisotope studies, indicating that these two microleakage methods can be directly compared.[52] Another study by Grobler et al.[53] stated that CLSM could detect resin tag formation, penetration of the bonding agents deep into the tubules, and hybrid layer formation for any bonding material.

Optical coherence tomography

This evaluation tool was first introduced in 1998 by Colston et al.[54],[55] to evaluate dental hard and soft tissues in pigs. In 2008, Drexler and Fujimoto [56] used OCT to visualize dental tissue in vivo. Since then, OCT use in dentistry has become increasingly more common.[57]

OCT produces 3D images for the qualitative and quantitative evaluation of dental hard and soft tissues in vivo.[58] This method enables clinicians to accurately and rapidly detect the early stages of dental caries, periodontal problems, and oral cancers.[59],[60] Researchers have used OCT to clinically evaluate dental restoration margins intraorally.[61] Moreover, OCT can be used to quantify bubbles and voids within composites and most dental restorations by detecting the reflection of infrared light waves from internal microstructures, similar to the ultrasonic pulse echo method.[62] It has been also reported that OCT can detect enamel cracks at the margins of composite restorations noninvasively.[63]

Bakhsh et al.[64] evaluated the tooth–restoration interface using OCT and CLSM and reported that OCT can be used to quantify interfacial gaps at a micron scale. Another study by Nazari et al.[65] used OCT to detect voids and gap formation with flowable resin composite. The authors concluded that OCT is a unique method to noninvasively and precisely assess restoration materials. The same conclusion was reported by Shimada et al.[59] in 2015.


  Conclusion Top


The microleakage assessment tools available to researchers each have their own advantages and disadvantages. Notably, the microleakage testing of different restorative materials should use similar methodologies to reduce variability in the results. Finally, OCT is a new tool with a great potential to test restorative material behavior in vivo.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Goldstein RE, Lamba S, Lawson NC, Beck P, Oster RA, Burgess JO, et al. Microleakage around Class V composite restorations after ultrasonic scaling and sonic toothbrushing around their margin. J Esthet Restor Dent 2017;29:41-8.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Mirzakhani M, Mousavinasab SM, Atai M. The effect of acrylate-based dental adhesive solvent content on microleakage in composite restorations. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2016;13:515-20.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Jia S, Chen D, Wang D, Bao X, Tian X. Comparing marginal microleakage of three different dental materials in veneer restoration using a stereomicroscope: An in vitro study. bdjopen.2016.10 2017;3:16010.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Gupta A, Tavane P, Gupta PK, Tejolatha B, Lakhani AA, Tiwari R, et al. Evaluation of microleakage with total etch, self etch and universal adhesive systems in Class V restorations: An in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2017;11:ZC53-6.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Hashemikamangar SS, Pourhashemi SJ, Nekooimehr Z, Dehaki MG, Kharazifard MJ. Effect of lactic acid on microleakage of Class V low-shrinkage composite restorations. J Dent (Tehran) 2016;13:223-30.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Sharafeddin F, Feizi N. Evaluation of the effect of adding micro-hydroxyapatite and nano-hydroxyapatite on the microleakage of conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer Cl V restorations. J Clin Exp Dent 2017;9:e242-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Al-Agha EI, Alagha MI. Nanoleakage of Class V resin restorations using two nanofilled adhesive systems. J Int Oral Health 2015;7:6-11.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Yang H, Guo J, Guo J, Chen H, Somar M, Yue J, et al. Nanoleakage evaluation at adhesive-dentin interfaces by different observation methods. Dent Mater J 2015;34:654-62.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Selvaraj K, Sampath V, Sujatha V, Mahalaxmi S. Evaluation of microshear bond strength and nanoleakage of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives to dentin pretreated with silver diamine fluoride/potassium iodide: An in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2016;27:421-5.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
10.
Ayar MK, Yildirim T, Yesilyurt C. Nanoleakage within adhesive-dentin interfaces made with simplified ethanol-wet bonding. J Adhes Sci Technol 2016;30:2511-21.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Öztürk F, Ersöz M, Öztürk SA, Hatunoğlu E, Malkoç S. Micro-CT evaluation of microleakage under orthodontic ceramic brackets bonded with different bonding techniques and adhesives. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:163-9.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Bonilla ED, Stevenson RG, Caputo AA, White SN. Microleakage resistance of minimally invasive Class I flowable composite restorations. Oper Dent 2012;37:290-8.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Khoroushi M, Ehteshami A. Marginal microleakage of cervical composite resin restorations bonded using etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives: Two dimensional vs. three dimensional methods. Restor Dent Endod 2016;41:83-90.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Vinagre A, Ramos J, Alves S, Messias A, Alberto N, Nogueira R. Cuspal displacement induced by bulk fill resin composite polymerization: Biomechanical evaluation using fiber bragg grating sensors. Int J Biomater 2016;2016:7134283.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Tavangar M, Tayefeh Davalloo R, Darabi F, Karambin M, Kazemi R. A comparative evaluation of microleakage of two low-shrinkage composites with a conventional resin composite: An in vitro assessment. J Dent (Shiraz) 2016;17:55-61.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Jacker-Guhr S, Ibarra G, Oppermann LS, Lührs AK, Rahman A, Geurtsen W, et al. Evaluation of microleakage in Class V composite restorations using dye penetration and micro-CT. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:1709-18.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Mohapatra A, Sivakumar N. Microleakage evaluation using acetate peel technique. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2011;35:283-8.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Lucena C, López JM, Abalos C, Robles V, Pulgar R. Statistical errors in microleakage studies in operative dentistry. A survey of the literature 2001-2009. Eur J Oral Sci 2011;119:504-10.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Lucena C, Lopez JM, Pulgar R, Abalos C, Valderrama MJ. Potential errors and misuse of statistics in studies on leakage in endodontics. Int Endod J 2013;46:323-31.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Hembree JH Jr. Microleakage at the gingival margin of Class II composite restorations with glass-ionomer liner. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:28-30.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Fitchie JG, Reeves GW, Scarbrough AR, Hembree JH. Microleakage of two new dentinal bonding systems. Quintessence Int 1990;21:749-52.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Reeves GW, Fitchie JG, Scarbrough AR, Hembree JH. Microleakage of gluma bond, scotchbond 2 and a glass ionomer/composite sandwich technique. Am J Dent 1990;3:195-8.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Going RE, Massler M, Dute HL. Marginal penetration of dental restorations by different radioactive isotopes. J Dent Res 1960;39:273-84.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Marquezan M, Corrêa FN, Sanabe ME, Rodrigues Filho LE, Hebling J, Guedes-Pinto AC, et al. Artificial methods of dentine caries induction: A hardness and morphological comparative study. Arch Oral Biol 2009;54:1111-7.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Füsun A, Füsun O, Sema B, Solen K. Acetate peel technique: A rapid way of preparing sequential surface replicas of dental hard tissues for microscopic examination. Arch Oral Biol 2005;50:837-42.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Yavuz I, Tumen EC, Kaya CA, Dogan MS, Gunay A, Unal M, et al. The reliability of microleakage studies using dog and bovine primary teeth instead of human primary teeth. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2013;14:42-6.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Subramaniam P, Pandey A. Assessment of microleakage of a composite resin restoration in primary teeth following Class III cavity preparation using Er, Cr: YSGG laser: An in vitro study. J Lasers Med Sci 2016;7:172-6.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Orłowski M, Tarczydło B, Chałas R. Evaluation of marginal integrity of four bulk-fill dental composite materials: In vitro study. ScientificWorldJournal 2015;2015:701262.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Fusayama T, Terachima S. Differentiation of two layers of carious dentin by staining. J Dent Res 1972;51:866.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Wu W, Cobb EN. A silver staining technique for investigating wear of restorative dental composites. J Biomed Mater Res 1981;15:343-8.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Fernando de Goes M, Montes MA. Evaluation of silver methenamine method for nanoleakage. J Dent 2004;32:391-8.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Costa JF, Siqueira WL, Loguercio AD, Reis A, Oliveira Ed, Alves CM, et al. Characterization of aqueous silver nitrate solutions for leakage tests. J Appl Oral Sci 2011;19:254-9.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Mixson J, Eick JD, Chappell RP, Tira DE, Moore DL. Comparison of two-surface and multiple-surface scoring methodologies for in vitro microleakage studies. Dent Mater 1991;7:191-6.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Raskin A, Tassery H, D'Hoore W, Gonthier S, Vreven J, Degrange M, et al. Influence of the number of sections on reliability of in vitro microleakage evaluations. Am J Dent 2003;16:207-10.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Gale MS, Darvell BW. Dentine permeability and tracer tests. J Dent 1999;27:1-11.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Majety KK, Pujar M.In vitro evaluation of microleakage of Class II packable composite resin restorations using flowable composite and resin modified glass ionomers as intermediate layers. J Conserv Dent 2011;14:414-7.  Back to cited text no. 36
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
37.
Gale MS, Darvell BW, Cheung GS. Three-dimensional reconstruction of microleakage pattern using a sequential grinding technique. J Dent 1994;22:370-5.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Iwami Y, Hayashi M, Takeshige F, Ebisu S. The accuracy of electrical method for microleakage evaluation by a three-dimensional analysis. J Dent 2007;35:268-74.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Federlin M, Thonemann B, Hiller KA, Fertig C, Schmalz G. Microleakage in Class II composite resin restorations: Application of a clearing protocol. Clin Oral Investig 2002;6:84-91.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Park JY, Chung JH, Lee JS, Kim HJ, Choi SH, Jung UW, et al. Comparisons of the diagnostic accuracies of optical coherence tomography, micro-computed tomography, and histology in periodontal disease: An ex vivo study. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2017;47:30-40.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
De Santis R, Anderson P, Tanner KE, Ambrosio L, Nicolais L, Bonfield W, et al. Bone fracture analysis on the short rod chevron-notch specimens using the X-ray computer micro-tomography. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2000;11:629-36.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, Motroni A, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D, et al. Influence of cone beam CT scanning parameters on grey value measurements at an implant site. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013;42:79884780.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Burghardt AJ, Pialat JB, Kazakia GJ, Boutroy S, Engelke K, Patsch JM, et al. Multicenter precision of cortical and trabecular bone quality measures assessed by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography. J Bone Miner Res 2013;28:524-36.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Ibrahim N, Parsa A, Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Aartman IH, Wismeijer D, et al. The effect of scan parameters on cone beam CT trabecular bone microstructural measurements of human mandible. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013;42:20130206.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
De Santis R, Mollica F, Prisco D, Rengo S, Ambrosio L, Nicolais L, et al. A 3D analysis of mechanically stressed dentin-adhesive-composite interfaces using X-ray micro-CT. Biomaterials 2005;26:257-70.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Swain MV, Xue J. State of the art of micro-CT applications in dental research. Int J Oral Sci 2009;1:177-88.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Carrera CA, Lan C, Escobar-Sanabria D, Li Y, Rudney J, Aparicio C, et al. The use of micro-CT with image segmentation to quantify leakage in dental restorations. Dent Mater 2015;31:382-90.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Özkan G, Kanli A, Başeren NM, Arslan U, Tatar İ. Validation of micro-computed tomography for occlusal caries detection: An in vitro study. Braz Oral Res 2015;29:S1806-83242015000100309.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Eden E, Topaloglu-Ak A, Cuijpers V, Frencken JE. Micro-CT for measuring marginal leakage of Class II resin composite restorations in primary molars prepared in vivo. Am J Dent 2008;21:393-7.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Mitropoulos P, Rahiotis C, Stamatakis H, Kakaboura A. Diagnostic performance of the visual caries classification system ICDAS II versus radiography and micro-computed tomography for proximal caries detection: An in vitro study. J Dent 2010;38:859-67.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Jardine AP, Rosa RA, Santini MF, Wagner M, Só MV, Kuga MC, et al. The effect of final irrigation on the penetrability of an epoxy resin-based sealer into dentinal tubules: A confocal microscopy study. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:117-23.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Tangsgoolwatana J, Cochran MA, Moore BK, Li Y. Microleakage evaluation of bonded amalgam restorations: Confocal microscopy versus radioisotope. Quintessence Int 1997;28:467-77.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Grobler SR, Oberholzer TG, Rossouw RJ, Grobler-Rabie A, Van Wyk Kotze TJ. Shear bond strength, microleakage, and confocal studies of 4 amalgam alloy bonding agents. Quintessence Int 2000;31:501-8.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Colston B, Sathyam U, Dasilva L, Everett M, Stroeve P, Otis L, et al. Dental OCT. Opt Express 1998;3:230-8.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Colston BW Jr., Everett MJ, Da Silva LB, Otis LL, Stroeve P, Nathel H, et al. Imaging of hard-and soft-tissue structure in the oral cavity by optical coherence tomography. Appl Opt 1998;37:3582-5.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Drexler W, Fujimoto JG. State-of-the-art retinal optical coherence tomography. Prog Retin Eye Res 2008;27:45-88.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Kim JM, Kang SR, Yi WJ. Automatic detection of tooth cracks in optical coherence tomography images. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2017;47:41-50.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
MercuŢ V, Popescu SM, Scrieciu M, Amărăscu MO, Vătu M, Diaconu OA, et al. Optical coherence tomography applications in tooth wear diagnosis. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2017;58:99-106.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Shimada Y, Sadr A, Sumi Y, Tagami J. Application of optical coherence tomography (OCT) for diagnosis of caries, cracks, and defects of restorations. Curr Oral Health Rep 2015;2:73-80.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Kim SH, Kang SR, Park HJ, Kim JM, Yi WJ, Kim TI, et al. Improved accuracy in periodontal pocket depth measurement using optical coherence tomography. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2017;47:13-9.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Türk AG, Sabuncu M, Ünal S, Önal B, Ulusoy M. Comparison of the marginal adaptation of direct and indirect composite inlay restorations with optical coherence tomography. J Appl Oral Sci 2016;24:383-90.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Dao Luong MN, Shimada Y, Turkistani A, Tagami J, Sumi Y, Sadr A, et al. Fractography of interface after microtensile bond strength test using swept-source optical coherence tomography. Dent Mater 2016;32:862-9.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Tabata T, Shimada Y, Sadr A, Tagami J, Sumi Y. Assessment of enamel cracks at adhesive cavosurface margin using three-dimensional swept-source optical coherence tomography. J Dent 2017;61:28-32.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Bakhsh TA, Sadr A, Shimada Y, Tagami J, Sumi Y. Non-invasive quantification of resin-dentin interfacial gaps using optical coherence tomography: Validation against confocal microscopy. Dent Mater 2011;27:915-25.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
Nazari A, Sadr A, Shimada Y, Tagami J, Sumi Y. 3D assessment of void and gap formation in flowable resin composites using optical coherence tomography. J Adhes Dent 2013;15:237-43.  Back to cited text no. 65
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Discussion
Conclusion
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed331    
    Printed10    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded83    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]