Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
Quintessence International
QI Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitterYouTube
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: QI
Quintessence International

Edited by Eli Eliav

ISSN 0033-6572 (print) • ISSN 1936-7163 (online)

Publication:
January 2004
Volume 35 , Issue 1

Back
Share Abstract:

In vitro microleakage of packable composites in Class II restorations

Alessandro Dourado Loguercio, DDS, MS, PhD; José Roberto de Oliveira Bauer, DDS; Alessandra Reis, DDS, PhD; Rosa Helena Miranda Grande, DDS, MS, PhD

Pages: 29-34
PMID: 14765638

Objectives: To evaluate the microleakage in Class II resin restorations at different margins and the polymerization shrinkage of the composites used. Method and materials: Four standardized Class II (3 3 5 3 2 mm) cavities were prepared in 32 teeth. The sample had the gingival margin either 1 mm below or above the cementoenamel junction. Teeth were divided and restored according to the following protocols: (1) Single Bond + P60; (2) Prime & Bond NT + Surefil; (3) Bond-1 + Alert; and (4) Prime & Bond 2.1 + TPH. After 7 days, the specimens were thermocycled (500 cycles between 5 to 55°C with a 15-second dwell time), immersed in 0.5% methylene blue for 24 hours, sectioned, and evaluated (both surfaces) at the gingival margin by two examiners, using a 0 to 3 marginal infiltration score system. The polymerization shrinkage of the composites (n = 6) was evaluated by the disk deflective method. Microleakage data was evaluated by nonparametric repeated measures ANOVA. The percentage of polymerization shrinkage was evaluated by ANOVA and Tukey’s test. Results: Only protocol 3 showed a significant difference between enamel and cementum margin. No difference was detected among the protocols in the enamel margin. Only protocol 1 provided a good seal in the cementum margin. All packable composites showed lower polymerization shrinkage than the hybrid tested. Conclusion: All protocols are able to prevent dye penetration in enamel margins; however, protocol 1 is preferable to reduce the microleakage in the cementum margin. The packable composites showed lower polymerization shrinkage compared to the hybrid resin.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  © 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog