Evaluation of marginal microleakage in Class II cavities: Effect of microhylolrid, flowable, and compactable resins

Objective: the goal of the present study was to evaluate the microleakage on the cementum/dentin and enamel surfaces in Class 11 restorations, using different kinds of resin composite (microhybrid, flowable, and compactable). Method and materials: Forty human caries-free molars were extracted and selected. Eighty Class 11 standardized cavities were made in the cervical wall at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) and at the mesial and distal surfaces. The teeth were divided into four groups: G1 - adhesive system + microhybrid resin composite Z100; G2 - adhesive system + compactable resin composite Prodigy Condensable; G3 - adhesive system + flowable resin composite Revolution + Z1 00 resin composite; G4 - adhesive system + Revolution fluid resin + compactable resin composite Prodigy Condensable. The adhesive system used in this study was Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus. The specimens were thermocycled in baths of 5degreesC and 55degreesC for 1,000 cycles and immersed in 50% silver nitrate solution. The specimens then were sectioned and evaluated on degree of dye penetration. Results: the results were evaluated using the nonparametric Kruskall-Wallis test, which showed a statistically significant difference between groups G1 and G4, G2 and G4, and G3 and G4. Conclusions: None of the materials was able to eliminate the marginal microleakage at the cervical wall; the application of a low-viscosity resin composite combined with a compactable resin composite significantly decreased the microleakage.

Evaluation of marginal microleakage in Class II cavities: Effect of microhybrid, flowable, and compactable resins

Objective: The goal of the present study was to evaluate the microleakage on the cementum/dentin and enamel surfaces in Class II restorations, using different kinds of resin composite (microhybrid, flowable, and compactable). Method and materials: Forty human caries-free molars were extracted and selected. Eighty Class II standardized cavities were made in the cervical wall at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) and at the mesial and distal surfaces. The teeth were divided into four groups: G1 - adhesive system + microhybrid resin composite Z100; G2 - adhesive system + compactable resin composite Prodigy Condensable; G3 - adhesive system + flowable resin composite Revolution + Z100 resin composite; G4 - adhesive system + Revolution fluid resin + compactable resin composite Prodigy Condensable. The adhesive system used in this study was Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus. The specimens were thermocycled in baths of 5°C and 55°C for 1,000 cycles and immersed in 50% silver nitrate solution. The specimens then were sectioned and evaluated on degree of dye penetration. Results: The results were evaluated using the nonparametric Kruskall-Wallis test, which showed a statistically significant difference between groups G1 and G4, G2 and G4, and G3 and G4. Conclusions: None of the materials was able to eliminate the marginal microleakage at the cervical wall; the application of a low-viscosity resin composite combined with a compactable resin composite significantly decreased the microleakage.

Polymerization shrinkage evaluation of three packable composite resins using a gas pycnometer.

Modern restorative dentistry has been playing an outstanding role lately since composite resins, allied to adhesive systems, have been widely applied on anterior and posterior teeth restorations. The evolution of composite resins has mostly been verified due to the improvement of their aesthetic behavior and the increase in their compressive and abrasive strengths. In spite of these developments, the polymerization shrinkage inherent to the material has been a major deficiency that, so far, has been impossible to avoid. Using a gas pycnometry, this research investigated the polymerization shrinkage of three packable composite resins: Filtek P60 (3M), Prodigy Condensable (Kerr), and SureFil (Dentsply/Caulk), varying the distance from the light source to the surface of the resins (2 mm or 10 mm). The pycnometer Accupyc 1330 (Micromeritics, USA) precisely records helium displacement, allowing fast and reliable measurements of the volume of composite resin immediately before and after polymerization, without interference of temperature or humidity. Results were not found to be statistically different for the three tested resins, either for 2 mm or 10 mm-distance from the light source to the composite surface.

Surface roughness of packable composite resins polished with various systems

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of four packable composite resins, SureFil™ (Dentsply, Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), Prodigy Condensable™ (Kerr Co., Orange, CA, USA), Filtek P60™ (3M do Brasil, São Paulo, Brazil), and ALERT® (Jeneric/Pentron, Inc., Wallingford, CT, USA) and one microhybrid composite resin (Filtek Z250™, 3M do Brasil) after polishing with four finishing systems. Materials and Methods: Twenty specimens were made of each material (5 mm in diameter and 4 mm high) and were analyzed with a profilometer (Perthometer® S8P, Perthen, Mahr, Germany) to measure the mean surface roughness (Ra). The specimens were then divided into four groups according to the polishing system: group 1 - Sof-Lex™ (3M do Brasil), group 2 - Enhance™ (Dentsply), group 3 - Composite Finishing Kit (KG Sorensen, Barueri, São Paulo, Brazil), and group 4 - Jiffy Polisher Cups® (Ultradent Products, Inc., South Jordan, UT, USA). The specimens were polished and then evaluated for Ra, and the data were subjected to analysis of variance, analysis of covariance, and Tukey's test (p = .05). Results: The mean Ra of SureFil polished with Sof-Lex was significantly lower than that of KG points. Prodigy Condensable polished with Enhance showed a significantly less rough surface than when polished with Sof-Lex. Filtek P60 did not exhibit a significant difference with the various polishing systems. For ALERT the lowest mean Ra was obtained with Sof-Lex and the highest mean Ra with KG points. Regarding Filtek Z250, polishing with KG and Jiffy points resulted in a significantly lower mean Ra than when polished with Enhance. Conclusions: Packable composite resins display variable roughness depending on the polishing system used; the Sof-Lex disks and Jiffy points resulted in the best Ra values for the majority of the materials tested.

In vitro evaluation of surface roughness of 4 resin composites after the toothbrushing process and methods to recover superficial smoothness.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficiency of repolishing, sealing with surface sealant, and the joining of both in decreasing the surface roughness of resin-based composites after a toothbrushing process. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Ten specimens of each composite (Alert, Z100, Definite, and Prodigy Condensable), measuring 2 mm in thickness and 4 mm in diameter, were made and submitted to finishing and polishing processes on both sides of the specimens using the Sof-Lex system. The specimens were then subjected to toothbrushing (30,000 cycles), and surface roughness (Ra) was analyzed with a Surfcorder SE 1700 profilometer. The upper surface of each composite was etched with 37% phosphoric acid, and the surface-penetrating sealant Protect-it was applied on 1 surface. The roughness of these surfaces was again measured. On the other side, the surface of the specimen was repolished, and the efficiency of this procedure was measured using the profilometer. The surface roughness resulting from the joining of the 2 methods was verified by applying, in the final stage, the surface-penetrating sealant on the repolished surface. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance and Tukey test (P <.05). RESULTS: Results showed that the lowest surface roughness values were obtained for Definite, Z100, and Prodigy Condensable after the repolishing process and after the repolishing plus sealing. For Alert, the joining of repolishing plus sealing promoted the lowest values of surface roughness. CONCLUSION: Of the resin-based composites, Alert demonstrated the highest values of surface roughness in all the techniques tested.

Clinical evaluation of two packable resin-based composite restorations: A three-year report

This randomized clinical trial sought to evaluate the performance of two packable composites over a period of 36 months. A total of 39 Class I and II restorations were placed in the permanent teeth of 20 patients. Using United States Public Health Services criteria, two investigators evaluated the restorations immediately after placement and again after 12 and 36 months, examining color match, marginal discoloration, marginal integrity, recurrent caries, proximal contact, anatomical shape, surface texture, and postoperative sensitivity. It was concluded that the packable composites evaluated showed satisfactory clinical performance after three years.

The volumetric fraction of inorganic particles and the flexural strength of composites for posterior teeth

Objective. To evaluate the content of inorganic particles and the flexural strength of new condensable composites for posterior teeth in comparison to hybrid conventional composites.Method. The determination of the content of inorganic particles was performed by mass weighing of a polymerized composite before and after the elimination of the organic phase. The volumetric particle content was determined by a practical method based on Archimedes' principle, which calculates the volume of the composite and their particles by differential mass measured in the air and in water. The flexural. strength of three points was evaluated according to the norm ISO 4049:1988.Results. The results showed the following filter content: Alert, 67.26%; Z-100, 65.27%; Filtek P 60, 62.34%; Ariston pHc, 64.07%; Tetric Ceram, 57.22%; Definite, 54.42%; Solitaire, 47.76%. In the flexural strength test, the materials presented the following decreasing order of resistance: Filtek P 60 (170.02 MPa) > Z-100 (151.34 MPa) > Tetric Ceram (126.14 MPa) = Alert (124.89 MPa) > Ariston pHc (102.00 MPa) = Definite (93.63 MPa) > Solitaire (56.71 MPa).Conclusion. New condensable composites for posterior teeth present a concentration of inorganic particles similar to those of hybrid composites but do not necessarily present higher flexural strength. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. Ltd. Alt rights reserved.

Clinical evaluation of proximal contacts of Class II esthetic direct restorations

Objective: This study evaluated the effectiveness of proximal contacts in Class II restorations using two types of matrix bands (steel and polyester) with two different restoration techniques (incremental and with prepolymerized particles). Method and materials: Eighty-eight Class II adjacent restorations using Prodigy resin composite were performed: 44 with the incremental technique (22 with steel matrix bands, 22 with polyester matrix bands) and 44 utilizing prepolymerized resin particles (22 steel matrix, 22 polyester matrix). The restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline and at 6, 12, and 18 months. Proximal contacts obtained immediately after restoration procedure in all restorations were satisfactory. Results: No statistically significant alterations were found in 18 months of evaluation. Conclusion: Regardless of the utilized resin composite, there were no differences in the amount of proximal contact variations with respect to tested techniques and matrices.

Análise comparativa da rugosidade superficial de resinas compostas de alta densidade

The success achieved by the use of composite resins in anterior teeth precipitately leads their use in posterior teeth. However, the indiscriminate application of these materials in cavities with several diverse sizes rapidly pointed out their lack of resistance to oclusal and proximal wear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the surface roughness of composite resin in relation to finishing and polishing technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight experimental groups (n = 15) were divided according to finishing and polishing technique: G1 – Z250TM composite resin without surface finishing and polishing; G2 – Z250TM composite resin plus surface finishing and polishing; G3 – P60TM composite resin without surface finishing and polishing; G4 – P60TM composite resin plus surface finishing and polishing; G5 – Prodigy CondensableTM composite resin without surface finishing and polishing; G6 – Prodigy CondensableTM composite resin plus surface finishing and polishing; G7 – SurefillTM composite resin without surface finishing and polishing; G8 – SurefillTM composite resin plus surface finishing and polishing. Three packable and one microhybrid (control group) composite resin was used. The surface roughness was measured using a profilometer at three points in each sample. The results were evaluated by ANOVA and Tukey test (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Prodigy CondensableTM composite resin showed the lowest surface roughness, while SurefillTM showed the highest surface roughness. Comparing the resins used, only between P60TM and SurefillTM there were no statistically significant differences (p > 0,05). CONCLUSION: Surface roughness was lower in all types of resin composites surfaces in contact with Mylar matrix strip than in areas submitted to finishing and polishing procedure.