SUMMARY
Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of four direct restorative materials that can be used in the proximal box elevation (PBE) technique.
Methods and Materials:
Seventy-five molar teeth were randomly assigned to one of five groups (n=15): type II glass ionomer (GI), type II resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), resin-based composite (RBC), bulk-fill (BF) resin-based composite, and a control with no box elevation procedure. Specimens were prepared for a standard mesio-occlusal-distal, computer-aided design/computer-aided manufactured (CAD-CAM) resin, nanoceramic onlay with mesial cervical margins located 1 mm above the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) and distal cervical margins located 2 mm below the CEJ. PBE was used to elevate the distal margins to 1 mm above the CEJ in all groups except the control group. For the control group the onlay margin was placed directly on the prepared distal tooth structure without PBE. A Lava Ultimate CAD/CAM resin, nanoceramic onlay restorative was manufactured and bonded on all specimens with RelyX Ultimate adhesive resin cement. The quality of the tooth-PBE material and PBE material-onlay interface was evaluated with scanning electron microscopy using epoxy resin replicas before and after cyclic loading (100,000 cycles, 1.2 Hz at 65N and 37°C). In addition to margin quality, the fracture resistance of each group was measured using a universal testing machine. Fracture pattern was recorded by visual examination. The Levene test for homogeneity and the Welch analysis of variance were completed for fracture resistance and margin quality. A χ2 test was completed for break mode.
Results:
For dentin margins, a statistically significant difference was detected between the RMGI and control groups at baseline (p=0.0442). All other groups—GI, RBC, and BF—showed no difference from the control at baseline (p>0.05). No statistical significance was observed among groups for post-cyclic fatigue (p=0.8735). For onlay margins, no statistical significance was observed among groups for pre-cyclic fatigue, post-cyclic fatigue, or change (p=0.9713, p=0.528, p=0.4385, respectively). No significant difference was observed for the fracture resistance among groups or for the type of break by material used (p=0.1593, p=0.77, respectively).
Conclusion:
Within the parameters of this study, after mechanical fatigue, the materials used for PBE: RMGI, RBC, and BF, did not influence results in terms of margin quality and fracture resistance. Therefore, collective findings suggest that these materials might be suitable for PBE procedures. Nevertheless, clinical caution is recommended with any PBE procedure and further testing of GI materials is needed.
Methodological Choices In Detecting Divergent Earnings: An Extension
