Margin quality and microleakage of Class II composite 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.

Download Full-text

Two years survival rate of class II composite resin restorations prepared by ART with and without a chemomechanical caries removal gel in primary molars

Clinical Oral Investigations ◽

10.1007/s00784-008-0241-5 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 13 (3) ◽

pp. 325-332 ◽

Cited By ~ 19

Author(s):

Asli Topaloglu-Ak ◽

Ece Eden ◽

Jo E. Frencken ◽

Ozant Oncag

Keyword(s):

Survival Rate ◽

Composite Resin ◽

Class Ii ◽

Primary Molars ◽

Caries Removal ◽

Composite Resin Restorations ◽

Resin Restorations

Download Full-text

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

Dental Materials ◽

10.1016/j.dental.2003.10.006 ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 20 (8) ◽

pp. 726-732 ◽

Cited By ~ 31

Author(s):

L POSKUS

Keyword(s):

Composite Resin ◽

Class Ii ◽

Knoop Hardness ◽

Composite Resin Restorations ◽

Resin Restorations

Download Full-text

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

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/19-078-c ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 45 (1) ◽

pp. E32-E42 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

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.

Download Full-text