Restorations of Class II Cavities Evaluated for Marginal Leakage When Restored with Composites or Giomers When Used with Different Bonding Agents.

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

This study aimed at evaluating marginal leakage of 3 different types of bonding agent and 2 posterior composites and a giomer available commercially. Class II box only cavities were prepared on 90 mandibular first molars with margins extending 1mm beyond cement enamel junction. The samples were divided into 9 groups on the basis of three different bonding agents and 2 different composites and giomer. Cavities were restored as per the manufacturer's description. Teeth were subjected to thermocycling regime (500×, 5-55°C) and dye penetration by immersing in 2% methylene blue for 24 hours. The marginal adaptation was evaluated as a continuous margin at gingival level under stereomicroscope. The results were analyzed using Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney U test. The results of the groups with total etch technique showed no statistical difference between Nanohybrid Filtek Z250XT and Hybrid SwissTec. The groups with self etch technique showed no statistical difference when used with either of the 2 composites. The acid etch technique when used showed better marginal adaptation compared to self etch technique. The giomer when used in total etch technique showed better adaptation than when used with self etch technique but over all showed more marginal leakage in comparison to the composites. Total etch technique in comparison to self etch technique gave better marginal adaptations for composites and giomers. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. doi: 10.11607/prd.4866.