Background: Glass ionomer cement (GIC) was one of the first aesthetic restorative materials introduced in dental arena by Wilson and Kent in 1972. Today, the new generation of glass ionomers, sometimes called intermediate restorative materials, may be able to provide better esthetics, stronger bond and long-term results lasting years rather than months, largely due to smaller mean particles sizes which increase the viscosity of the material. Hence; we planned the present study to assess and compare the microleakage of conventional GIC and resin modified GIC. Materials & methods: The present study included assessment of 20 extracted posterior teeth. Conventional glass ionomer cement (type II, shofu, incJapan) and Resin modified glass ionomer cement (Shofu,inc,Japan) were included in the study. 10 Samples were then filled with conventional GIC, while the remaining 10 samples were resorted with resin modified GIC. The samples were then immersed in 1% methylene blue dye for 24 hours at room temperature. Microleakage was assessed under stereomicroscope and was graded from 0 to 4 with 0 indicating no Microleakage and 4 indicating maximum. All the results were analysed by SPSS software. Results: Mean Microleakage of conventional GIC was found to be 1.25 while mean Microleakage of the resin modified GIC was found to be 1.12. Non- significant results were obtained while comparing the mean Microleakage in between conventional GIC group and resin modified GIC group. Conclusion: None of the tested restorative materials was free from the Microleakage.
Key words: Glass Ionomer cement, Microleakage, Resin.

Received: 13 May 2018                           Revised: 16 September 2018                          Accepted: 21September 2018

Corresponding author: Dr Sachin Vilas Shinde, Associate professor, Department of Dentistry, Prakash Institute of Medical Sciences, Islampur, India

This article may be cited as: Patil YB, Shinde SV. Assessment of Microleakage of Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement and resin Modified– GIC in Treatment of Permanent Posterior Teeth: A Comparative Study. Int J Res Health Allied Sci 2018; 4(5):11-13.