Effect of various incremental techniques on the marginal adaptation of class II composite resin restorations

1992 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony H.L. Tjan ◽  
Brian H. Bergh ◽  
Carla Lidner
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations

scholarly journals BULKFILL TECHNIQUES WITH INTERMEDIATE LAYER TO MARGINAL ADAPTATION RESTORATION OF CLASS II COMPOSITE RESIN

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 32
Author(s):  
Mochammad Raidjffan Zulkarnaen Tabona ◽  
Adioro Soetojo ◽  
Ira Widjiastuti
Keyword(s):  
Dental Caries ◽  
Intermediate Layer ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Base Layer ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Layer Technique ◽  
Natural Teeth ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations

Background: Dental caries is a hard tissue disease caused by bacterial metabolic activity that causes demineralization, teeth that have caries should be filled in order to function again. One of the restorative materials closer to natural teeth is composite resin because it is the same colour as natural teeth and is easy to shape. As for the placement technique, bulkfill is also used because it is more time-efficient, and irradiation is accompanied by applying the restoration material in one batch. However, the bulkfill technique often causes micro-leakage of dental caries deposition. The intermediate layer is an intermediate layer used to prevent micro-leakage at the edges of the restoration as a base layer for restoration to create a good adaptation before applying packable composite resin. Therefore, bulkfill coating technique with the intermediate layer can reduce the risk of microleakage. Purpose: To describe the bulkfill technique with an intermediate layer against marginal adaptation with class II composite resin restorations. Review: The literature sources used in the preparation of the articles through several databases with descriptions. More journals say that micro-leakage in class II cavity deposition with the intermediate layer technique is better than the bulkfill technique because the intermediate layer technique has better bond strength than the bulkfill technique. If the Bulkfill technique is modified with the Intermediate layer technique, it can show good correlation and internal adaptation. Conclusion: Bulkfill technique with an intermediate layer against marginal adaptation with class II composite resin restorations can reduce the microleakage rate by reducing the polymerization's shrinkage strain.

Effect of Light Curing Units on Marginal Adaptation and Hardness of Class II Composite Resin Restorations

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. 38-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larissa Maria Cavalcante ◽  
Alessandra Resende Peris ◽  
Luiz André Freire Pimenta ◽  
Nick Silikas
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Gap Formation ◽  
Vertical Slot ◽  
Light Curing ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Effect Of Light ◽  
Resin Restorations

Abstract Aims The aim of this study was to test the influence of different curing protocols on dentin marginal adaptation and the hardness of two composites. Methods and Materials Three light-curing-units (LCUs): Quartz-Tungsten-Halogen (QTH: 541mW/cm2), Argon-Ion-Laser (AL: 277mW/cm2), and Plasma-Arc-Curing (PAC: 1818mW/cm2) and two composites FiltekZ250 (F) and Tetric Ceram HB (TC) were tested. Sixty standardized “vertical-slot-Class II-cavities” were prepared at the mesial surface of bovine incisors and divided into six groups (n=10). Composites were placed using the Single Bond adhesive system and cured in 2 mm increments according to the manufacturers’ instructions. After polishing, epoxy replicas were processed for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) marginal adaptation analysis at 500x magnification. The specimens were then sectioned transversally to the dental long axis, embedded in polyester resin, then polished and submitted to the Knoop hardness test at gingival and occlusal portions of the restoration. Data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test (p=0.05). Results The gap margins ranged between 4.3 to 5.8 μm, and no statistically significant differences were revealed in marginal adaptation for LCUs or for composites (p>0.05). Location influenced hardness (p≤0.01). The occlusal portion presented significantly higher KHN than the gingival portion for all composite-LCU combinations. Regardless of the LCU used, TC produced statistically significant lower hardness values (ranging between 82.8 to 110.7 KHN) than F (ranging between 105.9 to 117.3 KHN). Conclusions Hardness and gap formation were not dependent on the LCUs tested in this study. Different resin composite was found to be a significant factor with regards to hardness but not gap formation. Citation Cavalcante LM, Peris AR, Silikas N, Pimenta LAF. Effect of Light Curing Units on Marginal Adaptation and Hardness of Class II Composite Resin Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007 November; (8)7:038-045.

Margin quality and microleakage of Class II composite resin restorations

1987 ◽  
Vol 114 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joo Loon Lui ◽  
Shigeyuki Masutani ◽  
James C. Setcos ◽  
Felix Lutz ◽  
Marjorie L. Swartz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations

The effect of proximal contour on marginal ridge fracture of Class II composite resin restorations

2008 ◽  
Vol 36 (10) ◽  
pp. 828-832 ◽  
Author(s):  
B.A.C. Loomans ◽  
F.J.M. Roeters ◽  
N.J.M. Opdam ◽  
R.H. Kuijs
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations

A Two-year Clinical Comparison of Three Different Restorative Materials in Class II Cavities

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. E32-E42 ◽  
Author(s):  
H Balkaya ◽  
S Arslan
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
High Viscosity ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Secondary Caries ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity ◽  
Resin Restorations

SUMMARY Objectives: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of Class II restorations of a high-viscosity glass ionomer material, of a bulk-fill composite resin, and of a microhybrid composite resin. Methods and Materials: One hundred nine Class II restorations were performed in 54 patients using three different restorative materials: Charisma Smart Composite (CSC; a conventional composite resin), Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF; a high-viscosity bulk-fill composite), and Equia Forte Fil (EF; a high-viscosity glass ionomer). Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE, Neuss, Germany) was used for both conventional and bulk-fill composite resin restorations. The restorations were evaluated using modified US Public Health Service criteria in terms of retention, color match, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, contact point, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, and surface texture. The data were analyzed using the chi-square, Fisher, and McNemar tests. Results: Eighty-four restorations were evaluated at two-year recalls. There were clinically acceptable changes in composite resin restorations (FBF and CSC). In addition, no statistically significant difference was observed between the clinical performances of these materials in terms of all criteria (p>0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between the EF group and the FBF and CSC groups in all parameters except for marginal discoloration, secondary caries, and postoperative sensitivity (p<0.05). Conclusions: The tested bulk-fill and conventional composite resins showed acceptable clinical performance in Class II cavities. However, if EF is to be used for Class II restoration, its use should be carefully considered.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document