Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the marginal adaptation, in enamel (E) and dentin (D), of composite resin (CR) associated with flowable resin composite (flow), bulk fill flowable base (bulk) and resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) in slot cavities. Material and Methods: The study was conducted after approval (Protocol No. 21148413.4.0000.5417) from Ethics Committee. Forty extracted human molar teeth were randomly assigned in eight experimental groups: E-CR, E-BULK, E-FLOW, E-RMGIC, D-CR, D-BULK, D-FLOW, D-RMGIC. The occlusal surface was planned, two slot cavities with standard sizes (depth: 2.0 mm, height: 2.5 mm, width: 2.0 mm) were created on a machine for making cavities. The teeth were restored and after 24h subjected to 2000 cyclic loading and sectioned for analysis of marginal adaptation by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The micrographs were analyzed with the Image J program to measure the size of marginal gaps. The data were transformed into percentages (%GAPS = LG ÷ LM × 100) and analyzed by 2-way ANOVA followed by the post hoc Tukey test (?=0.05). Results: There was a significant difference between different treatments (p<0.01). The groups E-RMGIC (p=0.001) and D-RMGIC (p=0) had the highest percentage of marginal gap. Others groups showed similar percentage of marginal gap (p>0.05). Conclusions: It was concluded that restorations with flowable composite resin and bulk fill liners exhibit the same behavior, but the RMGIC liner increased marginal gap.Keywords: Composite resins; Dental marginal adaptation; Glass ionomer cements.
Highlights
S hrinkage stress is the fundamental reason why composite polymerization shrinkage is a clinical concern [1,2,3,4]
There was a significant difference between different experimental treatments in relation E-resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and D-RMGIC and others groups (p
The combination of composite resin with modified glass ionomer resin by using the open sandwich technique had the highest percentage of marginal gap in enamel (E-RMGIC: 57.91 ± 35.56%) and dentin (D-RMGIC: 72.98 ± 29.05%)
Summary
S hrinkage stress is the fundamental reason why composite polymerization shrinkage is a clinical concern [1,2,3,4]. Polymerization contraction, which induces stress when the shrinkage cannot be accommodated by viscous flow of the composite [5], is capable of causing initial gaps in the restorations margins [6], leading to tooth sensitivity, pulp damage [7], and secondary caries [8,9]. This situation becomes more critical in class II restorations due to the difficulty of adapting the material at the gingival margin [10,11,12]. The hypothesis tested was that different materials did not influence the marginal adaptation in enamel and dentin
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
