The effect of composite resin application and radiation techniques on dye penetration in class II direct composite resin restorations

1999 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 254-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Ziskind ◽  
E. Venezia ◽  
E. Mass ◽  
Z. Hirschfeld
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Dye Penetration ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations

Efficacy of Four Lining Materials in Sandwich Technique to Reduce Microleakage in Class II Composite Resin Restorations

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 256-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
SM Moazzami ◽  
N Sarabi ◽  
H Hajizadeh ◽  
S Majidinia ◽  
Y Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Repeated Measurements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Sandwich Technique ◽  
Dye Penetration ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group A ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations

SUMMARY Objectives The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of four different sandwich techniques on gingival microleakage of Class II direct composite resin restorations. Materials and Methods Fifty sound human premolars were selected and randomly divided into five groups (n=10). Class II box only cavities were prepared in one of the proximal surfaces of each tooth with a gingival margin located approximately 0.5 mm below the cemento-enamel junction. Group A (control) was restored incrementally with composite resin (Tetric Ceram). Groups B, C, D, and E were restored with the sandwich technique using a compomer (Compoglass F), flowable composite resin (Tetric Flow), self-cure composite resin (Degufill SC), or resin modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC), respectively. After thermal-load cycling, the specimens were immersed in 0.5% basic fuschin for 24 hours. Dye penetration (10−1 mm) was detected using a sectioning technique. Data were analyzed with repeated measurements and Duncan test at α=0.05. Results The least amount of microleakage was detected in the incremental group (1.28 ± 0.98). The sandwich technique using resin modified glass ionomer (7.99 ± 9.57) or compomer (4.36 ± 1.78) resulted in significantly more leakage than did the sandwich technique using flowable (1.50 ± 1.97) or self-cure composite (2.26 ± 1.52). Conclusion According to the results of this study, none of the four sandwich technique composite resin restorations used in this study could reduce gingival microleakage to a greater degree than the incremental technique.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document