Influence of placement techniques on Vickers and Knoop hardness of class II composite resin restorations

2004 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 726-732 ◽  
Author(s):  
L POSKUS
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Knoop Hardness ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations

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

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.

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.

Influence of Different Exposure Times Required to Stabilize Hardness Values of Composite Resin Restorations

2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 42-50
Author(s):  
Larissa Maria Cavalcante ◽  
Luiz André Freire Pimenta ◽  
Nick Silikas ◽  
Thiago Assunção Valentino ◽  
Bruno Carlini-Jr.
Keyword(s):  
Linear Regression ◽  
Polynomial Regression ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Irradiation Time ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Knoop Hardness ◽  
Quadratic Regression ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Hardness Values ◽  
Resin Restorations

Abstract Aim The purpose of this study was to evaluate if Knoop hardness values (KHN) for top and bottom surfaces of resin composite materials can reach a plateau within a clinically acceptable photoactivation time. Methods and Materials Four light-curing units (LCUs) were evaluated in this study (n=5): QTH (Optilux501: 550 mW/cm2) and LEDs (FreeLight2: 1100 mW/cm2; UltraLume5: 900 mW/cm2; and Radii: 750 mW/cm2). Composite resin discs (4 mm × 2 mm) of Heliomolar (Ivoclar/Vivadent) and Herculite XRV (Kerr) were tested using five photoactivation times (20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 seconds). KHN were obtained for each test specimen and comparisons between LCUs, depths, and photoactivation times were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and polynomial regression analysis. Results Data for Heliomolar discs using linear regression found a relationship between the independent variables KHN and time with the Optilux501 at the top and bottom surfaces (r2=0.68/ r2=0.66). Radii presented a linear regression at the top surface (r2=0.75) and a quadratic regression at the bottom (r2=0.94). A quadratic regression was also detected for UltraLume5 and FreeLight2 at both top (r2=0.84/ r2=0.94) and bottom surfaces (r2=0.97/ r2=0.90), respectively, reaching a plateau at 80 seconds in all cases. For Herculite XRV, a quadratic regression was observed for all LCUs at the top and bottom surfaces and 80 seconds irradiation time was needed to reach a plateau in KHN. Conclusion There is a specific, but not clinically acceptable, photoactivation time that KHN at both top and bottom surfaces can reach a plateau and is dependent on LCUs and the resin-composite tested. Clinical Significance The LCUs and the resin-composite formulation affected the exposure time required to stabilize hardness values. The overall performance of LED LCUs was better than the QTH LCU regardless of the material evaluated. Citation Cavalcante LM, Valentino TA, Carlini B Jr, Silikas N, Pimenta LAF. Influence of Different Exposure Times Required to Stabilize Hardness Values of Composite Resin Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009 March; (10)2:042-050.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document