In Vitro Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation of Direct Class II Composite Restorations Made of Different “Low-Shrinkage” Systems

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 273-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
C Shahidi ◽  
I Krejci ◽  
D Dietschi
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Third Molars ◽  
Eccentric Load ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Perfect Adaptation ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Group A

SUMMARY The present study evaluated the influence of various low-shrinkage restorative systems in class II direct composite restorations following simulated occlusal loading. Forty MOD class II cavities were prepared on freshly extracted human lower third molars with proximal margins located mesially 1.0 mm coronal to and distally 1 mm apical to the cementoenamel junction. The samples were randomly distributed into five experimental groups corresponding to the following restorative systems: a conventional resin composite (Tetric) as active control group, a low-shrinkage composite (Extra Low Shrinkage [ELS]) alone or combined with its corresponding flowable version (ELSflow) used as a 1- to 1.5-mm liner, a bulk-filling flowable composite (Surefil SDR) covered by a 1-mm layer of restorative composite (Ceram-X), and a restorative bulk-filling composite (SonicFill). All specimens were submitted to 1,000,000 cycles with a 100N eccentric load into saline. Tooth restoration margins were analyzed semiquantitatively by scanning electron microscopy before and after loading. The percentage of perfect adaptation to enamel varied from 94.15% (SonicFill) to 100% (ELS) before loading and from 69.22% (SonicFill) to 93.61% (ELS and ELSflow) after loading. Continuous adaptation to cervical dentin varied from 22.9% (Tetric) to 79.48% (SDR/Ceram-X) before loading and from 18.66% (Tetric) to 56.84% (SDR/Ceram-X) after loading. SDR/CeramX and SonicFill showed the best cervical dentin adaptation.

Marginal Adaptation of Direct Class II Composite Restorations with Different Cavity Liners

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. E210-E220 ◽  
Author(s):  
R Pecie ◽  
I Onisor ◽  
I Krejci ◽  
T Bortolotto
Keyword(s):  
Elastic Modulus ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Shrinkage Stress ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group D

SUMMARY The aim of this study was to evaluate how cavity linings with different elastic modulus can influence the marginal adaptation (MA) of Class II composite restorations before and after thermo-mechanical loading. Materials and Methods: Forty Class II cavities with margins extending 1 mm below the cement-enamel junction were prepared in extracted human third molars. In each group except the control group, a lining material of 1-mm thickness was applied to the bottom of the cavity and polymerized before placing the resin composite Herculite XRV Ultra (group A: control; group B: Premise Flowable lining; group C: Herculite XRV Ultra lining; and group D: Optibond FL lining). MA was evaluated (with a scanning electron microscope) before and after loading (200,000 loading cycles). Statistical analysis was done using the Shapiro-Wilks test, the analysis of variance test, and Duncan post hoc test at p<0.05. Results: Before loading, the percentages of continuous margins in dentin were superior (p<0.05) for groups C and D (71.1% and 87.2%, respectively) compared to groups A and B (55.7% and 48.3%, respectively). After loading, group D (79.8%) was statistically superior in dentin compared to all of the other groups (43.6%, 35.9%, and 54.4%, respectively). In occlusal enamel, no significant difference was found between groups. The percentage of enamel fractures and the percentage of noncontinuous margins in proximal enamel were high, with no significant difference between liners. It can be concluded that for the materials used in this study, a 1-mm-thick lining with an extremely low elastic modulus (2-3 GPa) could redistribute shrinkage stress. The use of a flowable composite did not significantly improve MA.

scholarly journals Comparison of Proximal Contacts of Class II Resin Composite Restorations In Vitro

2006 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 688-693 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. A. C. Loomans ◽  
N. J. M. Opdam ◽  
F. J. M. Roeters ◽  
E. M. Bronkhorst ◽  
R. C. W. Burgersdijk
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Composite Restoration

Clinical Relevance When placing a Class II resin composite restoration, the use of sectional matrix systems and separation rings to obtain tight proximal contacts is recommended.

Effect of Refurbishing Amalgam and Resin Composite Restorations After 12 Years: Controlled Clinical Trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (6) ◽  
pp. 587-595 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Estay ◽  
J Martín ◽  
P Vildosola ◽  
IA Mjor ◽  
OB Oliveira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Initial State ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Localized Defects ◽  
Group A ◽  
Usphs Criteria ◽  
Group B

SUMMARY Objectives: The aim of this study was to clinically evaluate posterior amalgam and resin composite restorations refurbished over a period of 12 years by investigating the influence of refurbishing on the survival of restorations and comparing their behaviors with respect to controls. Methods and Materials: Thirty-four patients were enrolled, ages 18 to 80 years, with 174 restorations, 48 restorations of resin composite (RC), and 126 restorations of amalgam (AM). Restorations with localized defects in anatomy, roughness, luster, or marginal staining that were clinically judged as suitable for refurbishing according to US Public Health Service (USPHS) Ryge criteria were assigned to group A—refurbishing (n=85; 67 AM, 18 RC)—or group B—control (n=89; 59 AM, 30 RC); the quality of the restorations was evaluated blindly according to the modified USPHS criteria. Two observers conducted evaluations at the initial state (k=0.74) and after one to five, 10, and 12 years (k=0.88). Wilcoxon, Friedman, and Mantel-Cox tests were performed to compare the groups, respectively. Results: After 12 years, both groups experienced a similar decline, except for an evidently better performance in marginal adaptation in RC control (p=0.043) and in anatomy in AM refurbished (p=0.032). Conclusions: After 12 years, no difference was found in the clinical condition and longevity of the refurbished restorations compared to the control group.

scholarly journals Influence of Volumetric Shrinkage and Curing Light Intensity on Proximal Contact Tightness of Class II Resin Composite Restorations: In Vitro Study

2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
H El-Shamy ◽  
MH Saber ◽  
CE Dörfer ◽  
W El-Badrawy ◽  
BAC Loomans
Keyword(s):  
Light Intensity ◽  
High Intensity ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Volumetric Shrinkage ◽  
Low Intensity ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Curing Light

SUMMARY Background Proximal contact tightness of class II resin composite restorations is influenced by a myriad of factors. Previous studies investigated the role of matrix band type and thickness, consistency of resin composite, and technique of placement. However, the effect of volumetric shrinkage of resin and intensity of curing light has yet to be determined. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify the influence of these factors on the proximal contact tightness when restoring class II cavity preparations in vitro. Methods Sixty artificial molars were restored with either a low-shrinkage (Filtek Silorane, 3M ESPE) or a conventional (Z100, 3M ESPE) composite and polymerized with low-intensity (Smartlite IQ2, Dentsply) or high-intensity light curing units (DemiTM, Kerr). Proximal contact tightness was measured using the Tooth Pressure Meter. Data were statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc test. Results Use of low-shrinkage composite (Filtek Silorane) resulted in significantly tighter proximal contacts compared to the use of conventional composite (Z100) when cured with the same polymerization unit (p<0.001). Moreover, the low-intensity curing unit (IQ2) resulted in significantly tighter contacts than the high-intensity unit when material is constant (p<0.001). Conclusions Low-shrinkage resin composite and low curing light intensity is associated with tighter proximal contact values.

Comparison of the Effect of 0.2% Chlorhexidine Mouthwash and Persica Mouthwash on the Color of Resin Composite

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fatemeh Ebrahimzadeh ◽  
Hooman Fakhar ◽  
Hosein Akbari ◽  
Ramin Mosharraf ◽  
Azin Farzad
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Control Group ◽  
P Value ◽  
Patient Dissatisfaction ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
School Of Dentistry ◽  
Initial Color ◽  
Group B ◽  
And Control

Introduction: Discoloration of resin composite restorations can lead to patient dissatisfaction. 0.2% Chlorhexidine and Persica mouthwashes are among the agents that cause discoloration. The aim of this study was to investigate the degree of discoloration caused by the 0.2% Chlorhexidine and Persica mouthwashes on resin composite samples. Materials and Methods: This in-vitro experimental study was conducted in Kashan and Isfahan School of Dentistry in 2020-2021. Number of 30 disc-shaped samples were fabricated from Charisma Diamond resin composite. The initial color of samples was measured by CIE Lab system in spectrophotometer. Then samples were divided into 3 groups (A, B, and C) (n = 10).The control group (A) was placed in distilled water, group B was immersed in the 0.2% Chlorhexidine mouthwash and group C was immersed in the Persica mouthwash. The color of the samples was measured again afterwards. Data were analyzed with One-way ANOVA and t-Test (α = 0.05). Results: The amount of l, a, b and ΔE after using 0.2% Chlorhexidine and Persica mouthwashes increased. The mean of Δl, Δa, Δb and ΔE showed significant differences between groups (p value < 0.05). Conclusion: The discoloration of Persica mouthwash was more than 0.2% Chlorhexidine mouthwash and control group. Therefore, for patients with resin composite restorations, 0.2% Chlorhexidine mouthwash is better.

scholarly journals Class II resin composite restorations—tunnel vs. box-only in vitro and in vivo

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Preusse ◽  
Julia Winter ◽  
Stefanie Amend ◽  
Matthias J. Roggendorf ◽  
Marie-Christine Dudek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Composite Restorations

scholarly journals Margin Integrity of Bulk-Fill Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth

Materials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (17) ◽  
pp. 3802 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alina Paganini ◽  
Thomas Attin ◽  
Tobias T. Tauböck
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Positive Control ◽  
Negative Control ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Fill Materials

This in vitro study examined the margin integrity of sculptable and flowable bulk-fill resin composites in Class II cavities of primary molars. Standardized Class II cavities were prepared in human primary molars and restored with the following resin composite materials after application of a universal adhesive: a sculptable bulk-fill composite (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TEC) or Admira Fusion x-tra (AFX)), a flowable bulk-fill composite (Venus Bulk Fill (VBF) or SDR), or a conventional composite (Filtek Supreme XTE (FS)). The bulk-fill materials were applied in 4 mm layers, while the conventional composite was applied in either 2 mm (FS2, positive control) or 4 mm layers (FS4, negative control). The specimens were exposed to thermo-mechanical loading (TML) in a computer-controlled masticator. A quantitative margin analysis was performed both before and after TML using scanning electron microscopy, and the percentage of continuous margins (margin integrity) was statistically analyzed (α = 0.05). All composites showed a significant decline in margin integrity after TML. AFX exhibited the significantly highest margin integrity of all materials after TML (97.5 ± 2.3%), followed by FS2 (79.2 ± 10.8%), TEC (73.0 ± 9.1%), and FS4 (71.3 ± 14.6%). SDR (43.6 ± 22.3%) and VBF (25.0 ± 8.5%) revealed the lowest margin integrity. In conclusion, the tested sculptable bulk-fill materials show similar or better margin integrity in primary molars than the conventional resin composite placed in 2 mm increments.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Marginal Integrity of Four Bulk-Fill Dental Composite Materials:In VitroStudy

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mirosław Orłowski ◽  
Bożena Tarczydło ◽  
Renata Chałas
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Dental Composite ◽  
Third Molars ◽  
Rating Score ◽  
Dye Penetration ◽  
Flowable Composite ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Blue Solution ◽  
Side Walls

Objective. The aim of the study was to compare underin vitroconditions marginal sealing of 4 different bulk-fill materials composite restorations of class II.Methods. Comparative evaluation concerned 4 composites of a bulk-fill type: SonicFill, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, Filtek Bulk Fill, and SDR. The study used 30 third molars without caries. In each tooth 4 cavities of class II were prepared. The prepared tooth samples were placed in a 1% methylene blue solution for 24 h, and after that in each restoration the depth of dye penetration along the side walls was evaluated.Results. The highest rating (score 0, no dye penetration) was achieved by 93.33% of the restorations made of the SDR material, 90% of restorations of SonicFill system, 86.66% of restorations of the composite Filtek Bulk Fill, and 73.33% of restorations of the Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill.Conclusion. The performed study showed that bulk-fill flowable or sonic-activated flowable composite restorations have better marginal sealing (lack of discoloration) in comparison with bulk-fill paste-like composite.

scholarly journals Complicações associadas a restaurações realizadas em áreas de contato interproximal

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandson Cleyton Ferreira da Silva Oliveira ◽  
Rauhan Gomes de Queiroz ◽  
Basilio Rodrigues Vieira ◽  
Elizandra Silva Penha ◽  
Luanna Abílio Diniz Melquíades de Madeiros ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dental Caries ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Caries Experience ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Postural Changes

Introdução: Diversas complicações estão associadas a restaurações realizadas em áreas de contato interproximal levando a tratamentos restauradores insatisfatórios, que poderão acarretar o surgimento de diversas complicações, desde retenção alimentar até formação de bolsas periodontais com perda óssea. Objetivo: Avaliar na literatura quais as principais complicações associadas a restaurações realizadas em áreas de contato interproximal. Metodologia: Realizou-se uma pesquisa de trabalhos nas seguintes bases de dados eletrônica: Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), Biblioteca Eletrônica Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), PubMed e Bibliografia Brasileira de Odontologia (BBO), entre os anos de 2000 a 2018. Resultados: A busca das bases de dados eletrônicas recuperou 97 artigos. Após a leitura do título e resumo, leitura na íntegra e aplicação dos critérios de inclusão e exclusão foi selecionado um total de 14 estudos. Conclusão: Complicações estão associadas às diferentes etapas do tratamento restaurador interproximal, indo desde o difícil diagnóstico à verificação da adaptação marginal. O estabelecimento de ponto de contato com dispositivos foi a complicação mais encontrada.Descritores: Adaptação Marginal Dentária; Falha de Restauração Dentária; Restauração Dentária Permanente.ReferênciasFejerskov O, Nyvad B, Kidds E. Dental caries: the disease and its clinical management. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2015.Hopcraft MS, Morgan MV. Pattern of dental caries experience on tooth surfaces in an adult population. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2006;34(3):174–83.Skold UM. On caries prevalence and schoo-based fluoride programmes in Swedish adolescente. Swed Dent J Suppl. 2005;1(178):11-75.Scholtanus JD, Özcan M. Clinical longevity of extensive direct composite restorations in amalgam replacement: up to 3.5 years follow-up. J Dent. 2014;42(11):1404-10.Melo P, Manarte P, Domingues J, Coelho S, Teixeira L. Técnica para obtenção do ponto de contacto em restaurações de classe II com compósito. Rev Fac Ciênc Sáude. 2005;2(1):63-72.Santos MJMC. A restorative approach for class ii resin composite restorations: a two-year follow-up. Oper Dent. 2015;40(1):19-24.Dörfer CE, von Bethlenfalvy ER, Staehle HJ, Pioch T. Factors influencing proximal dental contact strengths. Eur J Oral Sci. 2000;108(5):368-77.Loomans BAC, Opdam NJM, Roeters FJM, Brinkhorst EM, Plasschaert AJM. The long-term effect of a composite resin restoration on proximal contact tightness. J Dent. 2007;35(2):104-08.Cho SD; Browning WD, Walton KS. Clinical use of a sectional matrix and ring. Oper Dent. 2010;35(5):587-91.Meneghel LL, Wang L, Lopes MB, Gonini Junior A.  Interproximal space recovery using an orthodontic elastic separator before prosthetic restoration: a case report. Braz Dent J. 2011;22(1):79-82.Wirsching E, Loomans BAC, Klaiber B, Dörfer CE. Influence of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness of 2-and 3-surface posterior composite restorations in vivo. J Dent. 2011;39(5):386-90.Saber MH, El-Bradawy W, Loomans BAC, Ahamed DR, Dörfer CE, El Zohairy A. Creating tight proximal contacts for MOD resin composite restorations. Oper Dent, 2011;36(3):304-10.Costa TA, Raitz R, Belan LC, Matson MR. Análise do contorno da face proximal obtido em restaurações classe II de resina composta utilizando-se dois tipos diferentes de matrizes metálicas. Rev Odontol Univ São Paulo. 2009;21(1):31-7.Patras M, Doukoudakis S. Class II composite restorations and proximal concavities: clinical implications and management. Oper Dent. 2013;38(2):119-24.Prakki A, Cilli R, Saad JOC; Rodrigues JR. Clinical evaluation of proximal contacts of Class II esthetic direct restorations. Quintessence Int. 2004;35(10):785-89.Kim HS, Na HJ, Kim HJ, Kang DW, Oh SH. Evaluation of proximal contact strength by postural changes. J Adv Prosthodont. 2009;1(3):118-23.El-Shamy H, Saber M, Dörfer CE, El-Bradawy W, Loomans BAC. Influence of volumetric shrinkage and curing light intensity on proximal contact tightness of class II resin composite restorations: in vitro study. Oper Dent. 2012;37(2):205-10.Teich ST, Joseph J, Sartori N, Heima M, Duarte S. Dental floss selection and its impact on evaluation of interproximal contacts in licensure exams. J Dent Educ, 2014;78(6):921-26.Moreira MA, Larentis NL, Arossi GA, Rodruigues ED, Bortoli FR, Haas MF. A radiografia interproximal é necessária para confirmar a adaptação clínica de restaurações proximais com resinas compostas em dentes posteriores? RFO UPF. 2015;20(1):69-74.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document