scholarly journals Gingival Microleakage of Dental Amalgam, Bulk Fill Composite Resin and Alkasite Based Composite Restorations in Class II Cavities

2021 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 3759-3765
Author(s):  
Asmaa Abdallah
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Dental Amalgam ◽  
Composite Restorations

scholarly journals Semidirect vital tooth onlay restoration: a case report

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Barros Esteves Lins ◽  
Marina Rodrigues Santi ◽  
Luís Roberto Marcondes Martins
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Resin Cements ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Polymerization Shrinkage ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Ceramic Inlays

In the loss of much of the coronary structure, either through caries or a fracture, it is indicated to perform restorative laboratory techniques in order to re-establish the patient's health, function and aesthetics, through conservative and minimally invasive techniques. The aim of this manuscript is to report on a clinical case of a posterior restoration using a semidirect composite resin onlay restoration. Initially, a direct morphological reconstruction of bulk-fill resin was performed, followed by cavity preparation with diamond tips. Alginate melding and a model of elastomer-based material were performed. The professional made the onlay piece in micro-hybrid composite resin in the model incrementally. Cementation was performed with dual resin cement following manufacturer's recommendations. Finally, the occlusal adjustment was performed in the maximum habitual intercuspal position and during eccentric mandible movements. We conclude that the semidirect restorative technique in composite resin is as effective as direct and indirect restorations; however, the correct indication of these restorative procedures will define the clinical prognosis.Descriptors: Dental Restoration; Permanent; Molar. Rehabilitation.ReferencesAngeletaki F, Gkogkos A, Papazoglou E, Kloukos D. Direct versus indirect inlay/onlay composite restorations in posterior teeth. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;53:12-21.Morimoto S, Rebello de Sampaio FB, Braga MM, Sesma N, Özcan M. Survival Rate of Resin and Ceramic Inlays, Onlays, and Overlays: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2016;95:985-94.Spreafico RC, Krejci I, Dietschi D. Clinical performance and marginal adaptation of class II direct and semidirect composite restorations over 3.5 years in vivo. J Dent. 2005;33:499-507.Lins R, Vinagre A, Alberto N, Domingues MF, Messias A, Martins LR, Nogueira R, Ramos JC. Polymerization Shrinkage Evaluation of Restorative Resin-Based Composites Using Fiber Bragg Grating Sensors. Polymers (Basel). 2019a;11;E859.Lins RBE, Aristilde S, Osório JH, Cordeiro CMB, Yanikian CRF, Bicalho AA, Stape THS, Soares CJ, Martins LRM. Biomechanical behaviour of bulk-fill resin composites in class II restorations. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2019b;2:255-261.Opdam NJM, Roeters FJM, Feilzer AJ, Verdonschot EH. Marginal integrity and postoperative sensitivity in Class 2 resin composite restorations in vivo. J. Dent. 1998;26: 555-62.Bicalho AA, Valdívia AD, Barreto BC, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A, Soares CJ. Incremental filling technique and composite material–part II: shrinkage and shrinkage stresses. Operat. Dent. 2014;39:E83–E92.Soares CJ, Faria-E-Silva AL, Rodrigues MP, Vilela ABF, Pfeifer CS, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A. Polymerization shrinkage stress of composite resins and resin cements - What do we need to know? Braz Oral Res. 2017;28:e62.van Dijken JW. A 6-year evaluation of a direct composite resin inlay/onlay system and glass ionomer cement-composite resin sandwich restorations. Acta Odontol Scand. 1994;52:368-76.Ferracane JL, Stansbury JW, Burke FJ. Self-adhesive resin cements - chemistry, properties and clinical considerations. J Oral Rehabil. 2011;38:295-314.Bacelar-Sá R, Sauro S, Abuna G, Vitti R, Nikaido T, Tagami J, Ambrosano GMB, Giannini M. Adhesion Evaluation of Dentin Sealing, Micropermeability, and Bond Strength of Current HEMA-free Adhesives to Dentin. J Adhes Dent. 2017;19:357-364.Alharbi A, Rocca GT, Dietschi D, Krejci I. Semidirect composite onlay with cavity sealing: a review of clinical procedures. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2014;26:97-106.Hirata R, Kabbach W, de Andrade OS, Bonfante EA, Giannini M, Coelho PG. Bulk Fill Composites: An Anatomic Sculpting Technique. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2015;27:335-43.Fron Chabouis H, Prot C, Fonteneau C, Nasr K, Chabreron O, Cazier S, Moussally C, Gaucher A, Khabthani Ben Jaballah I, Boyer R, Leforestier JF, Caumont-Prim A, Chemla F, Maman L, Nabet C, Attal JP. Efficacy of composite versus ceramic inlays and onlays: study protocol for the CECOIA randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2013;3:278.Torres CRG, Zanatta RF, Huhtala MFRL, Borges AB. Semidirect posterior composite restorations with a flexible die technique: A case series. J Am Dent Assoc. 2017;148:671-676.Marcondes M, Souza N, Manfroi FB, Burnett LH Jr, Spohr AM. Clinical Evaluation of Indirect Composite Resin Restorations Cemented with Different Resin Cements. J Adhes Dent. 2016;18:59-67.Liu X, Fok A, Li H. Influence of restorative material and proximal cavity design on the fracture resistance of MOD inlay restoration. Dent Mater. 2014;30:327-33.Fruits TJ, Knapp JA, Khajotia SS. Microleakage in the proximal walls of direct and indirect posterior resin slot restorations. Oper Dent. 2006;31:719-27.

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.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Gingival Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations with Different Lining Techniques: An In Vitro Study

Scientifica ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Vedavathi Bore Gowda ◽  
B. V. Sreenivasa Murthy ◽  
Swaroop Hegde ◽  
Swapna Devarasanahalli Venkataramanaswamy ◽  
Veena Suresh Pai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Study Groups ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Composite Liner ◽  
Flowable Composite ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Group 4 ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

Aim. To compare the microleakage in class II composite restorations without a liner/with resin modified glass ionomer and flowable composite liner.Method. Forty standardized MO cavities were prepared on human permanent mandibular molars extracted for periodontal reasons and then divided into 4 groups of ten specimens. The cavity preparations were etched, rinsed, blot dried, and light cured and Adper Single Bond 2 is applied. Group 1 is restored with Filtek P60 packable composite in 2 mm oblique increments. Group 2 is precure group where 1 mm Filtek Z350 flowable liner is applied and light cured for 20 sec. Group 3 is the same as Group 2, but the liner was cocured with packable composite. In Group 4, 1 mm RMGIC, Fuji Lining LC is applied and cured for 20 sec. All the teeth were restored as in Group 1. The specimens were coated with nail varnish leaving 1 mm around the restoration, subjected to thermocycling, basic fuchsin dye penetration, sectioned mesiodistally, and observed under a stereomicroscope.Results. The mean leakage scores of the individual study groups were Group 1 (33.40), Group 2 (7.85), Group 3 (16.40), and Group 4 (24.35). Group 1 without a liner showed maximum leakage. Flowable composite liner precured was the best.

Necessity of bevels for box only Class II composite restorations

1998 ◽  
Vol 80 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niek J.M. Opdam ◽  
Joost J.M. Roeters ◽  
Ruud Kuijs ◽  
Rob C.W. Burgersdijk
Keyword(s):  
Class Ii ◽  
Composite 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

scholarly journals Influence of Fiber Inserts, Type of Composite, and Gingival Margin Location on the Microleakage in Class II Resin Composite Restorations

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. E9-E15 ◽  
Author(s):  
V Dhingra ◽  
S Taneja ◽  
M Kumar ◽  
M Kumari
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Blue Dye ◽  
Group Vi ◽  
Group V ◽  
Gingival Margin ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Group I ◽  
Distal Side ◽  
Fiber Inserts

SUMMARY This study evaluated the influence of fiber inserts, type of composites, and location of the gingival seat on microleakage in Class II resin composite restorations. Fifty noncarious human third molars were selected for the study. Standardized Class II box type cavities were prepared on the mesial and distal side of 45 teeth. The gingival margin was placed above the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) on the mesial side and below the CEJ on the distal side. The remaining five teeth received no cavity preparations. The prepared samples were divided randomly on the basis of type of composite and presence or absence of fiber inserts, into four experimental groups of 10 teeth each and two control groups of five teeth each. The groups were defined as follows: group I (n=10) – Z350 XT; group II (n=10) – Z350 XT with fibers; group III (n=10) – P90; group IV (n=10) – P90 with fibers; and group V (n=5) – positive controls, cavities were not restored; group VI (n=5) – negative controls, no cavities were prepared. The samples were stored in distilled water in incubator at 37°C for 24 hours and then subjected to 500 cycles of thermocycling (5°C and 55°C) with a dwell time of 15 seconds. They were then placed in a 2% methylene blue dye solution for 24 hours at 37°C. Samples were sectioned longitudinally and evaluated for microleakage at the occlusal and gingival margin under a stereomicroscope at 20× magnification. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to compare the mean leakage scores. Restorations with gingival margins in enamel showed significantly less microleakage. Significant reduction in microleakage was observed in groups restored with P90 composite than those restored with Z350 XT. No improvement in microleakage was observed with the use of fiber inserts (p>0.05).

Gingival Microleakage of Class II Resin Composite Restorations with Fiber Inserts

10.2341/06-86 ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 298-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. El-Mowafy ◽  
W. El-Badrawy ◽  
A. Eltanty ◽  
K. Abbasi ◽  
N. Habib
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Fiber Inserts

Clinical Relevance Fiber inserts incorporated at the gingival floor of Class II composite restorations resulted in a significant reduction of microleakage scores as compared to restorations made without inserts. This may lead to a reduced incidence of recurrent caries.

Effects of Rinsing Water Temperature and Preheated Composites on Microleakage of Composite Restorations with Two Bonding Agents

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Reza Malekipour ◽  
Mehrdad Barekatain ◽  
Farzaneh Shirani ◽  
Samaneh Alaei
Keyword(s):  
Water Temperature ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Acid Etching ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Class V ◽  
Bonding Agents ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Valuable Method ◽  
Group 1

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of rinsing water temperature and preheated composites on microleakage of class V restorations with two different bonding agents. Materials and Methods: Eighty class V cavities were prepared in the buccal and lingual surfaces of 40 molars. Single Bond and Prime and Bond NT bonding agents were used. The teeth were divided into four groups of 10. G1: After acid etching, cavities were rinsed with 23˚C water and filled with 23˚C composite resin. G2: Rinsing water and composite resin had 55˚C temperature. G3: Rinsing water had 55˚C and composite resin had 23˚C temperature. G4: Rinsing water had 23˚C and composite resin had 55˚C temperature. The specimens were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsine dye. Microleakage scores were analysed with the Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, and Wilcoxon tests. Results: There were significant differences in microleakage of specimens prepared with Single Bond and Prime and Bond NT only in group 1 (P<0.05). There were no significant differences between the microleakage of groups rinsed with different water temperatures (P>0.05). There were significant differences between the unheated and preheated composite groups (P<0.05). Conclusion: Preheating of composite is a valuable method to increase its adaptability and decrease microleakage of composite restorations.

scholarly journals Marginal Integrity of Bulk Versus Incremental Fill Class II Composite Restorations

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Al-Harbi ◽  
D Kaisarly ◽  
D Bader ◽  
M El Gezawi
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Sandwich Technique ◽  
Thermomechanical Cycling ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Marginal Integrity ◽  
Chi Square Test ◽  
Maxillary Premolars ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARY Bulk-fill composites have been introduced to facilitate the placement of deep direct resin composite restorations. This study aimed at analyzing the cervical marginal integrity of bulk-fill vs incremental and open-sandwich class II resin composite restorations after thermomechanical cycling using replica scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and ranking according to the World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria. Box-only class II cavities were prepared in 91 maxillary premolars with the gingival margin placed 1 mm above and below the cemento-enamel junction. Eighty-four premolars were divided into self-etch and total-etch groups, then subdivided into six restorative subgroups (n=7): 1-Tetric Ceram HB (TC) was used incrementally and in the open-sandwich technique with 2-Tetric EvoFlow (EF) and 3-Smart Dentin Replacement (SD). Bulk-fill restoratives were 4-SonicFill (SF), 5-Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill (TN), and 6-Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TE). In subgroups 1-5, Tetric N-Bond self-etch and Tetric N-Bond total-etch adhesives were used, whereas in subgroup 6, AdheSE self-etch and ExciTE F total etch were used. One more group (n=7) was restored with Filtek P90 Low Shrink Posterior Restorative (P9) only in combination with its self-etch P90 System Adhesive. Materials were manipulated and light cured (20 seconds, 1600 mW/cm2), and restorations were artificially aged by thermo-occlusal load cycling. Polyvinyl-siloxane impressions were taken and poured with epoxy resin. Resin replicas were examined by SEM (200×) for marginal sealing, and percentages of perfect margins were analyzed. Moreover, samples were examined using loupes (3.5×) and explorers and categorized according to the FDI criteria. Results were statistically analyzed (SEM by Kruskal-Wallis test and FDI by chi-square test) without significant differences in either the replica SEM groups (p=0.848) or the FDI criteria groups (p&gt;0.05). The best SEM results at the enamel margin were in TC+EF/total-etch and SF/total-etch and at the cementum margins were in SF/total-etch and TE/self-etch, while the worst were in TC/self-etch at both margins. According to FDI criteria, the best was TE/total-etch at the enamel margin, and the poorest was P9/self-etch at the cementum margin. Groups did not differ significantly, and there was a strong correlation in results between replica SEM and FDI ranking.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document