Microleakage of Class I and II Composite Resin Restorations Using a Sonic-resin Placement System

Kalmowicz, J; Phebus, Jeffrey G; Owens, Barry M; Johnson, William W.; King, Grant

doi:10.2341/15-006-l

Cited by 32 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the application of composite resin can involve a very complex and challenging procedure due to many material and clinical considerations (15,16). A goal of the present study was to assess the microtensile bond strength and hardness of a recently developed sonicresin placement system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Microtensile Bond Strength and Microhardness of Composite Resin Restorations Using a Sonic-Resin Placement System

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of applying sonic energy on microtensile bond strength and microhardness after the restoration process. A total of 40 human third molars were extracted. Class II cavities were prepared and restored with composite SonicFill or Filtek Z350 XT with and without the application of sonic energy. After the teeth were stored in water for 24 h, the teeth were sectioned into sticks (1.0 mm 2 ) and subjected to tensile testing. For a depth Knoop hardness test, the samples were cut and indentations were made sequentially from the surface of the samples to the bottom of the samples in three intervals of 1 mm each. The samples were then subjected to a load of 50 g for 10 s. The results from the tensile (factors: placement system and composite) and hardness (factors: placement system, composite and depth) tests were subjected to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test, followed by analysis of variance and Tukey's test (5% significance). For the placement system factor, higher bond strength was observed for the cavities that were restored with sonic energy (p < 0.001). For depth Knoop hardness, the hardness at 1 mm depth was significantly greater than that at 3 mm depth just for the restorations with Filtek Z350 XT composite without the application of sonic energy. Therefore, the use of sonic energy during the restorative process improved bonding, yet it did not markedly affect the depth hardness for both composites.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Composite resin has rapidly been replacing amalgam as the posterior restorative material of choice for many dental patients (15,16). However, the application of composite resin can involve a very complex and challenging procedure due to many material and clinical considerations (15,16).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microtensile Bond Strength and Microhardness of Composite Resin Restorations Using a Sonic-Resin Placement System

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some investigators have reported that cracks, fractures and microleakage occurred in class II cavities appeared to be major clinical problem. [25][26][27][28][29] When selected points on MO and MOD cavity designs were compared, it is observed that the von Mises and compressive stresses were higher in MOD cavity design and the tensile stresses were similar for both cavity design. After endodontic treatment, it is noted that the amount of stress that occurred in endodontically treated teeth might increase and the fracture resistance tend to decrease because of dental hard tissue loss.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Different Base Materials on the Stress Distribution of the Endodontically Treated Teeth: 3D FEA

Halaçoğlu

Yamanel²

2019

Cumhuriyet Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This study evaluated stress distrubitions formed by oblique forces in dental hard tissues, base materials and restorations of endodontically treated permanent mandibular first molars that were restored with different base materials and direct composite restorations by using 3D-FEA method. Materials and Methods: For two different restorative approaches; an MO cavity design and a MOD cavity design was created. Then root canal obturation was modeled. Composite resin (CR), conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC), fiber reinforced composite resin (FRC), resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), flowable composite (FC), and bulk-fill composite resin (BF) were used as base materials. Von Mises, compressive and tensile stresses in enamel, dentin, base materials and final restoration were analyzed using finite element stress analysis method.Results: Regarding the resulting stresses, CR caused highest stresses and RMGIC caused lowest stresses in enamel, base material, and final restoration. RMGIC caused highest stresses and CR caused lowest stresses in dentin. It was noted that MOD cavity design caused more stress than MO cavity design for all analyzed materials. Conclusions:Materials with elastic moduli similar to dentin; FRC and GIC, may be better choice to avoid high stresses within the tooth and restoration.

show abstract

“…Kalmowicz et al, al evaluar la presencia de microfiltración en restauraciones clases I y II, reportan que la infiltración es dependiente de la presencia de esmalte en el borde cavosuperficial (31). En su estudio, compara preparaciones bajo el límite amelocementario con otras que presentar terminación en esmalte, a diferencia del presente estudio en el cual todas las terminaciones de las preparaciones se encontraron exclusivamente en esmalte.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Estabilidad marginal de una resina condensable versus resina monoincremental activada sónicamente en restauraciones clase II: estudio in vitro

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

/AVANCES EN ODONTOESTOMATOLOGÍA 46 AVANCES EN ODONTOESTOMATOLOGÍA Vol. 32 -Núm. 1 -2016 INTRODUCCIÓNLos materiales restauradores en base a resinas compuestas fotopolimerizables han aumentado sus indicaciones clínicas en el sector posterior, reemplazando las indicaciones de las restauraciones de amalgama, con resultados aún muy variables (1,2) especialmente en restauraciones compuestas que involucran una o más superficies proximales, en las cuales, el margen gingival es crítico para el proceso de adhesión, y continúa siendo una técnica sensible, dependiente del operador y que no previene la filtración a nivel del margen gingival (3). Por esto, lo ideal es que este margen se localice en esmalte sano, ya que en las restauraciones adhesivas que están ubicadas bajo el límite amelocementario la calidad de la integridad marginal es cuestionable (4-6), favoreciendo la filtración marginal, que se define como el movimiento clínicamente indetectable de fluidos bacterianos, moléculas y iones a través de microbrechas de 10-6 micrones (µm) lo cual puede convertirse en una fuente de sensibilidad postoperatoria, inflamación pulpar y caries recurrente (6-8).Dentro de las opciones de materiales restauradores en base a resinas compuestas para preparaciones clase II se encuentran las resinas condensables, las cuales son más rígidas y menos pegajosas que las resinas compuestas tradicionales por lo que son de más fácil manipulación, debido a cambios en su matriz orgánica y al relleno inorgánico, aumentando sus propiedades reológicas, viscosidad y disminuyendo su adhesión a los instrumentos (9,15). Esto las hace menos sensibles a la técnica y más fácil de ubicar y adaptar a cavidades posteriores (10), evitando su tracción durante la adaptación a los márgenes de la preparación (11). Sin embargo, también poseen inconvenientes como los relacionados a la generación del punto de contacto (11) y el desarrollo de estrés en la interfase diente-restauración durante la polimerización (12).Para reducir estos efectos se ha recomendado el uso de resinas compuestas fluidas como liner bajo resinas condensables en el margen gingival de cajas proximales en restauraciones clase II, para mejorar así la integridad marginal (13,14) con resultados aún discutibles (15,16).Han aparecido en el mercado materiales basados en resinas compuestas que son incorporados con una técnica monoincremental (17-20), y el sistema SonicFill TM es uno de ellos. De consistencia viscosa debido a su alto contenido de relleno (84%) y meof mesiodistal lenght at the occlusal box, and 3 mm wide, 4 mm deep and 1,5 mm of mesiodistal length at the proximal box. It was randomly determined to restore a preparation with condensable resin Filtek TM P60 (3M® ESPE-USA) using oblique incremental technique, while these cond preparation used SonicFill TM resin (Kerr-USA) with mono-incremental technique and sonic activation. These were thermocycled in methylene blue 1%, then cut in mesio-distal sense and analysed by optical microscope. The degree of penetration of the infiltrator agent in th...

show abstract

Microleakage of Class I and II Composite Resin Restorations Using a Sonic-resin Placement System

Cited by 32 publications

References 31 publications

Microtensile Bond Strength and Microhardness of Composite Resin Restorations Using a Sonic-Resin Placement System

Microtensile Bond Strength and Microhardness of Composite Resin Restorations Using a Sonic-Resin Placement System

The Effects of Different Base Materials on the Stress Distribution of the Endodontically Treated Teeth: 3D FEA

Estabilidad marginal de una resina condensable versus resina monoincremental activada sónicamente en restauraciones clase II: estudio in vitro

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About