Abstract
The aim of the present study is to compare the marginal adaptation of direct, semi-direct and indirect restorations made with nanofill and microhybrid composite materials and ormocers materials bonded with SE adhesives at the dentin and cementum. 120 standardized class II cavities were prepared (40 for each techniques- RD, RSD, RI) with the gingival margin over and below to the cementum-enamel junction. The teeth (n= 20) were restored using one of three adhesive systems (OptiBond XTR, G-Premio Bond bottle refill, Futurabond U) with incrementally placed composite restorations and ormocers. After applying the various restorations, the teeth were prepared for SEM analysis to check the marginal adaptation by the presence of continuous margins or gaps. Comparative analysis of treatment methods and materials used was performed by statistical analysis of Chi-square test data, the statistical significance was p [0.05 and Fisher�s Exact Test for validation of results. It was found that among the three materials used for RD, RSD, RI both at the dentin and the cementum, there are no significant differences (RD d = 0.661, RSD/d = 0.755, RSD/c = 0.942; RI/d = 0.739; RI/c = 0.985). Comparison between the presence of continuous margins/gaps subgingivally and supragingivally at the three types of restorations shows that there are significant differences between the marginal adaptation at the cementum and dentin to all the restoration techniques used (p [0.05). Direct and indirect restorations with nanocomposites and ormocers bonded with 1-step SE adhesive are the best solutions for restoring the posterior teeth.
Highlights
The aim of the present study is to compare the marginal adaptation of direct, semi-direct and indirect restorations made with nanofill and microhybrid composite materials and ormocers materials bonded with SE adhesives at the dentin and cementum. 120 standardized class II cavities were prepared (40 for each techniques- RD, RSD, RI) with the gingival margin over and below to the cementum-enamel junction
After applying the various restorations, the teeth were prepared for SEM analysis to check the marginal adaptation by the presence of continuous margins or gaps
The aim of this study is to evaluate the marginal adaptation of direct, semidirect and indirect restorations made with nano composite filling materials (PremiseTM, Estelite Sigma Quick), microhybrid composite (Gradia direct), ceromers (Crea.ling Bredent, Ceramage Shofu ArtGlace, Hereus) and ormocer (Admira Fusion) bonded with 2-step self-etch adhesive systems (OptiBond XTR) and 1-step self etch (G-Premio Bond bottle refill) and dual cure cement (Futurabond U) at the dentin and cementum
Summary
The aim of the present study is to compare the marginal adaptation of direct, semi-direct and indirect restorations made with nanofill and microhybrid composite materials and ormocers materials bonded with SE adhesives at the dentin and cementum. Comparison between the presence of continuous margins/gaps subgingivally and supragingivally at the three types of restorations shows that there are significant differences between the marginal adaptation at the cementum and dentin to all the restoration techniques used (p
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
