The New Posterior Resins And

Jackson, Ronald; Morgan, Michael

doi:10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0182

Cited by 61 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Though there are numerous causes for failure of clinical restorations made of direct composites, the major cause with the earlier posterior composites was poor wear resistance. [12] While the newest direct composite resins offer excellent optical and mechanical properties, their use in larger posterior restorations is still a challenge since polymerization shrinkage remains a concern in cavities with high C-factor. Though there have been numerous advances in adhesive systems, it is observed that the adhesive interface is unable to resist the polymerization stresses in enamel-free cavity margins.…”

Section: The Need For Ircmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indirect resin composites

Nandini

2010

J Conserv Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aesthetic dentistry continues to evolve through innovations in bonding agents, restorative materials, and conservative preparation techniques. The use of direct composite restoration in posterior teeth is limited to relatively small cavities due to polymerization stresses. Indirect composites offer an esthetic alternative to ceramics for posterior teeth. This review article focuses on the material aspect of the newer generation of composites. This review was based on a PubMed database search which we limited to peer-reviewed articles in English that were published between 1990 and 2010 in dental journals. The key words used were ‘indirect resin composites,’ composite inlays,’ and ‘fiber-reinforced composites.’

show abstract

Section: The Need For Ircmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indirect resin composites

Nandini

2010

J Conserv Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Polymerization of composites can cause deformation on the surrounded tooth structure resulting in microcracks which predispose the tooth to fracture [11]. In contrast to incrementally technique, if the preparation is bulk-filled with a single composite increment, the resulting high C-factor can further increase shrinkage stress [12]. Fracture resistance is one of the most important characteristics of dental materials.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture Resistance of Premolars Restored by Various Types and Placement Techniques of Resin Composites

Moosavi

Zeynali

Pour

2012

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To verify the fracture resistance of premolars with mesioocclusodistal preparations restored by different resin composites and placement techniques. Sixty premolars were randomly divided into two groups based on type of composite resin: Filtek P60 or Nulite F, and then each group was separated into three subgroups: bulk, centripetal, and fiber insert according to the type of placement method (n=10). Single-bond adhesive system was used as composite bonding according to the manufacturer's instructions. Specimens were restored in Groups 1, 2, and 3 with Filtek P60 and in Groups 4, 5, and 6 with Nulite F. After being stored 24 hours at37∘C, a 4 mm diameter steel sphere in a universal testing machine was applied on tooth buccal and lingual cusps at a cross-head speed of 5 mm/min until fracture occurred. Groups 3 and 6 showed higher fracture resistance than Groups 1, 2, 4, and 5. Among the placement techniques, the fiber insert method had a significant effect, but the type of composite was ineffective. The insertion technique in contrast to the type of material had a significant influence on the fracture resistance of premolar teeth.

show abstract

“…Refinement in these materials led to the development of microhybrid composite, with mean particle sizes in the 0.6- to 0.7-micrometer range. [2] Although successful techniques for posterior resin placement have been developed with these universal microhybrid materials, they present many challenges when clinicians attempt to place morphologically correct and functional class II restorations. [3] Many hybrid composites are difficult to manipulate because of inherent stickiness and slumping.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Due to their packability, these composites help in restoring good contacts in posterior teeth. [23] These stiffer materials may not adequately adapt to internal areas and cavosurface margins at the cervical joint. Flowable resin composites used as liners in areas of difficult access have been suggested to address this concern.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of different placement techniques on marginal microleakage of deep class-II cavities restored with two composite resin formulations

Muppa¹,

Sajjan

Kumaraswamy

et al. 2010

J Conserv Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The study aims to evaluate and compare marginal microleakage in deep class II cavities restored with various techniques using different composites.Materials and Methods:Sixty freshly extracted teeth were divided into six groups of 10 teeth each. Standardized class II cavities were made and were restored using composites of different consistencies with different placement techniques. Group 1 with Microhybrid composite, Group 2 with Packable composite, Group 3 Microhybrid composite with a flowable composite liner, Group 4 Packable composite with a flowable composite liner, Group 5 Microhybrid composite with precured composite insert in second increment and Group 6 Packable composite with precured insert in second increment. Specimens then were stored in distilled water, thermocycled and immersed in 50% silver nitrate solution. These specimens were sectioned and evaluated for microleakage at the occlusal and cervical walls separately using stereomicroscope.Results:The results demonstrated that in the occlusal wall, packable composite, showed significantly more marginal microleakage than the other groups. In the cervical wall, teeth restored with a flowable composite liner showed less marginal microleakage when compared to all other groups.Conclusion:Based on the results of this study, the use of flowable composite as the first increment is recommended in deep class II cavities.

show abstract

The New Posterior Resins And

Cited by 61 publications

References 17 publications

Indirect resin composites

Indirect resin composites

Fracture Resistance of Premolars Restored by Various Types and Placement Techniques of Resin Composites

Effect of different placement techniques on marginal microleakage of deep class-II cavities restored with two composite resin formulations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About