The effect of c-factor and flowable resin or fiber use at the interface on microtensile bond strength to dentin

PURPOSE: As polymerization shrinkage is compensated by flow of the composite, several attempts have been performed for relief of the contraction stresses. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of flowable composite or fiber use under composite restorations on microtensile bond strength of composite to dentin in Class I cavities or flat dentin surfaces. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four sound extracted human first or second mandibular molars were randomly assigned to two groups (Class I cavities with a high c-factor or flattened dentin surfaces with a low c-factor). The dentin surfaces were treated with adhesive resin and restored with resin composite using four different techniques (bulk; with flowable composite; with a glass fiber (everStick NET); with a polyethylene fiber [Ribbond]). After 24 h storage at 37 degrees C in water, the specimens were thermocycled 600 times between 5 and 55 degrees C. Microtensile test specimens with a 0.9 x 0.9 (+/- 0.1) mm2 cross-sectional area were produced, and bond strength tests were carried out at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Mean bond strengths were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni's test at a 95% significance level. RESULTS: Flowable composite decreased dentin bond strength in cavities with a high c-factor (p < 0.05). The group restored with everStick NET showed stable bond strengths regardless of the effect of c-factor. Ribbond THM used under composite restorations increased dentin bond strength in cavities with a high c-factor (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Flowable composite decreased dentin bond strength in cavities with a high c-factor; however, using a glass fiber in combination with flowable resin, stable bond strengths can be achieved in cavities with a high c-factor. Polyethylene fiber in combination with flowable resin increases the microtensile bond strength to the dentin floor in cavities with a high c-factor.     

Gingival microleakage of Class II resin composite restorations with fiber inserts

PURPOSE: This investigation evaluated the effect of glass and polyethylene fiber inserts on the microleakage of Class II composite restorations with gingival margins on root surfaces. METHODS: Fifty-four intact molars were sterilized with Gamma irradiation and mounted in acrylic bases. Class II slot cavities were made on both proximal sides of each tooth (3 mm wide, 1.5 mm deep) with the gingival margin on the root surface. The teeth were divided into nine groups, according to the technique of restoration and type of bonding agent. Filtek P-60 (3M/ESPE) was used to restore all cavities. Two types of fiber inserts were used: glass fiber (Ever Stick, StickTech) and polyethylene (Ribbond-THM), with three bonding agents being employed: Scotch Bond Multipurpose (3M/ESPE), Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray) and Xeno IV (Dentsply). In the experimental groups, 3 mm long fiber inserts were inserted into restorations at the gingival seat. The control groups had no fiber inserts. The restorations were made incrementally and cured with LED light (UltraLume5, Ultradent). The restored teeth were stored in water for two weeks, then thermocycled for 3000 cycles (5 degrees C and 55 degrees C). The tooth surfaces were sealed with nail polish, except at the restoration margins. The teeth were immersed in 2% procion red dye solution, sectioned and dye penetration was assessed to determine the extent of microleakage according to a six-point scale. RESULTS: The fiber groups generally showed reduced microleakage scores compared to the control groups. The Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray)/Filtek P-60 (3M/ESPE) combination produced the lowest degree of microleakage, irrespective of fiber type. However, the glass fiber groups were more consistent in reducing microleakage than the polyethylene groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of fiber inserts significantly reduced gingival microleakage in Class II composite restorations with gingival margins in dentin, irrespective of the adhesive used. Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray)/Filtek P60 (3M/ESPE) produced the lowest microleakage scores.     

Influence of flowable liner and margin location on microleakage of conventional and packable class II resin composites

This in vitro study evaluated gingival wall microleakage in packable and microhybrid conventional composite restorations with and without a flowable composite liner. Each group was evaluated with gingival margins situated in both enamel and cementum/dentin. Two hundred and forty Class II cavities were prepared in extracted third molars, half with gingival margins in enamel and half with margins in dentin/cementum. In groups of 30, restoration was undertaken with packable alone (3M Filtek P60), conventional alone (3M Z250), packable plus flowable liner (3M Filtek Flow) and conventional plus flowable liner. All used 37% phosphoric acid etch and Scotchbond 1 (3M) as the bonding system. After restoration, the teeth were thermocycled (between 5 degrees C, 37 degrees C and 60 degrees C) 1,500 times, soaked in 0.1% methylene blue, sectioned and microleakage from the gingival margin scored. Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. There was no significant difference between systems in terms of leakage scores when gingival margins were situated in enamel (p=0.70). All restorations with margins in cementum/dentin leaked significantly more than those with margins in enamel (p<0.001). There was no significant difference between leakage scores of 3M Z250 and Filtek P60 with cementum/dentin gingival margins (p=0.68). Use of a flowable composite liner (3M Filtek Flow) against cementum/dentin was associated with increased microleakage (p<0.001). In this study, leakage scores suggest that gingival margins should be placed in enamel. The conventional and packable resin composites tested were not associated with differences in microleakage. Leakage data do not support the use of flowable resin composite linings in Class II resin composite restorations.     

Microleakage of posterior packable resin composites with and without flowable liners

The use of flowable composites as liners in Class II packable composites has been suggested by some manufacturers. However, the contributions of this technique are unproven. This study evaluated marginal microleakage in Class II packable composite restorations with and without the use of a flowable composite liner. A conventional microhybrid composite was used as a control. Microleakage at occlusal and gingival margins of Class II cavities was evaluated using 45Ca and autoradiographs. Fifty non-carious, restoration-free human molar teeth were used. Separate mesio-occlusal and disto-occlusal Class II cavity preparations were made in each tooth. Gingival margins of all cavities were placed 1 mm apical to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). Four Packable composites (Alert, Surefil, Pyramid and Solitaire) and one conventional microhybrid composite (Renew) with their respective manufacturer's bonding agents were used to restore the cavities. One side of each tooth was restored with composite alone, while the other side was restored with the composite lined with that manufacturer's flowable liner. The restored teeth were thermally stressed and 45Ca was used to evaluate microleakage. Two independent evaluators scored leakage based on the autoradiographs. The results showed flowable composites helped reduce microleakage at gingival margins of Class II restorations (p < 0.05). Gingival margins had higher microleakage than occlusal margins (p < 0.05). Without flowable liners, three packable composites (Alert, Pyramid and Surefil) showed higher leakage (p < 0.05) than the microhybrid control. Only Solitaire packable composite without liner showed no significant difference in microleakage to the control (p > 0.05). Although the flowable liners help reduce microleakage, Alert and Pyramid packable composites with liners still showed higher leakage than the control (p < 0.05). Surefil and Solitaire packable composites with flowable liners showed no significant difference in microleakage (p > 0.05) to the control.     

Effect of eccentric load cycling on microleakage of Class V flowable and packable composite resin restorations.

Class V composite restorations are subject to the stresses that induce non-carious cervical lesions. This study evaluated the effect of eccentric oblique load on microleakage of restorations. Class V cavities were randomly prepared on the buccal surfaces of 40 recently extracted premolars and restored with composite resin according to manufacturers' directions. Teeth were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups with 10 teeth per group: (1) flowable resin (Revolution) without load cycling; (2) packable resin (Prodigy Condensable) without load cycling; (3) flowable resin with load cycling (200,000 cycles) and (4) packable resin with load cycling (200,000 cycles). All teeth were then immersed in 2% methylene blue solution for 24 hours after thermocycling (500 cycles). Dye penetration was measured (scores 0-3). The results indicated that adding load cycling significantly increased microleakage (p < 0.05). No significant differences in microleakage were observed for flowable resin vs packable resin. Gingival margins had significantly more microleakage (p < 0.05) than occlusal margins.     

EFFECT OF ADDITIONAL ENAMEL ETCHING AND A FLOWABLE COMPOSITE TO THE INTERFACIAL INTEGRITY OF CLASS II ADHESIVE COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS

Objective : The purpose of this study was to evaluate microleakage of Class II composite restorations using a self‐etching adhesive system with additional enamel etching and/or a flowable resin composite material. Materials and Methods : Fifty standardized Class II cavities were prepared in the mesial and distal surfaces of extracted human third molars. All teeth were bonded with a self‐etching primer adhesive system (Clearfil® Liner Bond 2, Kuraray Co. Ltd., Osaka, Japan) according to the manufacturer's instructions and were restored with a resin composite (Clearfil® AP‐X, Kuraray Co. Ltd.). In the control group, only a self‐etching adhesive system was used. In the various experimental groups, the preparation surfaces were coated with a layer of flowable resin composite (Protect® Liner F, Kuraray Co. Ltd.) before the placement of resin composite, etched with 37% phosphoric acid (K‐Etchant®, Kkraray Co. Ltd.) before the application of the adhesive system, or treated with both of these options. In four groups of specimens, the preparation had a gingival margin in enamel. In a fifth group, the gingival margin was in dentin. All teeth were subjected to thermocycling, 300 cycles between 4°C and 60°C, and were sectioned in half through the restorations. Gaps or cracks at the resin‐tooth interfaces were observed directly using a laser scanning microscope and were recorded as percentages of the entire interface length. Results : Separate enamel etching with phosphoric acid did not improve the resin‐enamel seal produced by the self‐etching primer alone. Flowable resin composite produced gap‐free resin‐dentin interfaces but could not prevent cracks and gap formation at the resin‐enamel interface. Conclusions : Neither flowable resin composite nor enamel etching could prevent gap formation at enamel‐resin interfaces and crack formation in enamel walls when used with a self‐etching primer adhesive system. However, the flowable composite provided gap‐free resin‐dentin interfaces.     

Effect of flexural load cycling on microleakage of extended root caries restorations

This study evaluated the microleakage of resin-modified glass ionomer, flowable compomer and flowable resin composite restorations on a Class V cavity of simulated advanced root caries under a flexural load cycling condition. Thirty-six non-carious human maxillary premolars were mounted in cylindrical acrylic resin molds. The cavities were prepared in the proximal root surface, from the middle of the buccal surface to the middle of the lingual surface, approximately 1 mm below the cemento-enamel junction, 2 mm axial width and 1.2 mm in depth. The teeth were randomly assigned to one of three groups with 12 teeth in each group: Group 1: Cavity conditioner and Fuji II LC (GC America), Group 2: Prime & Bond NT and Dyract Flow (Caulk-Dentsply), Group 3: Excite and Tetric flow (Ivoclar/Vivadent). Specimens were settled laterally on a fatigue-testing machine that was adjusted to deliver a force of 60N. The specimens were load cycled at 1 Hz for 5000 cycles, placed in a staining solution and sectioned to evaluate microleakage penetration. Results indicate that the coronal and gingival margins showed significant microleakage differences among the three restorations (p<0.05). At the coronal margin, there was no significant difference between Groups 2 and 3. At the gingival margin, there was no significant difference between Groups 1 and 2. It was concluded that the marginal sealing ability of a flowable resin composite under a flexural cycling load was better than in other selected materials and that flowable resin composite with dentin adhesive was a desirable alternative for root caries restorations extended to the proximal surface.     

Effect of insertion technique and adhesive system on microleakage of Class V resin composite restorations

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of different insertion techniques and adhesive systems on microleakage of Class V composite resin restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight human molars were randomly assigned to four groups (n = 12). Standardized mixed Class V cavities (enamel and dentin margins) were prepared at the CEJ. A total-etch (Adper Scotchbond MultiPurpose) and a self-etching (iBond) adhesive system were evaluated using either an incremental or single-step (bulk) insertion technique. The preparations were restored with Esthet*X micromatrix hybrid composite. The teeth were thermocycled 1000 cycles, immersed in 1% methylene blue dye for 24 h, and invested in acrylic resin. The specimen blocks were then sectioned longitudinally, with dye penetration (microleakage) examined with a 20X binocular microscope. Enamel and dentin margins were scored separately for microleakage using an ordinal ranking system. Results were analyzed using non-parametric tests at a p < 0.05 level of significance. RESULTS: Significance was exhibited between the groups (adhesive material/insertion technique) at the coronal and apical margins. At the coronal margin, the total-etch adhesive/incremental insertion group exhibited significantly less leakage than the other groups, while at the apical margin, the total-etch adhesive/incremental insertion group showed significantly less leakage than the self-etching adhesive/bulk insertion group. Significantly less leakage was found at the coronal margins compared to the apical margins of the material/technique groups. CONCLUSION: The use of a total-etch adhesive system and incremental insertion of composite significantly reduced microleakage at the coronal and apical margins of Class V composite restorations.     

The effect of flowable resin composite on microleakage and internal voids in class II composite restorations

This in vitro study evaluated the influence of two flowable resin composites on marginal microleakage and internal voids in Class II composite restorations with the margins below the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). Class II cavities randomly divided into four groups: Group I-Filtek with Filtek Flow lining; Group II-Filtek; Group III-Tetric Ceram with Tetric Flow lining; Group IV-Tetric Ceram. After thermocycling tests (5-60 x 1500) and dye soaking, the teeth were sectioned in a mesiodistal direction along their longitudinal axis. Gingival-marginal microleakage and internal voids in three separate portions of the restoration (interface, cervical and occlusal voids) were observed with a microscope. Statistical analyses indicated that the use of flowable resin composites (Groups I and III) provided a reduction in marginal microleakage and a reduction in some parts of the internal voids or total voids (p<0.05). The condensable material (Filtek) in combination with the flowable liner showed fewer voids (interface, occlusal, total) than the hybrid resin (Tetric) (p<0.05). There was a correlation between the number of internal voids or total voids and the marginal microleakage (p<0.05). It was concluded that a composite lining in a Class II resin composite with margins below the cementoenamel junction may reduce marginal microleakage and voids in the interface and the total number of voids in the restoration.     

Composite restorations: influence of flowable and self-curing resin composite linings on microleakage in vitro

This in vitro study evaluated the microleakage at enamel (occlusal) and dentin (gingival) margins of MOD resin composite restorations made with different incremental insertion techniques. MOD cavities were prepared on 60 extracted human molars with the proximal margins placed 1 mm below the cemento-enamel junction. All teeth were acid-etched and treated with One-Step adhesive, then restored with a hybrid resin composite (Renew) with and without a flowable composite (AEliteflo) or a self-curing composite (Bisfil 2B) as the first increment in the proximal boxes. The time of placement of the second increment in relation to curing of the first increment was also varied. After polishing, the teeth were soaked in 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 hours, sectioned and evaluated for dye penetration. None of the restorative techniques prevented microleakage at the enamel and dentin margins. However, microleakage at dentin margins were significantly reduced by the use of a flowable composite as the first increment in the proximal boxes. Time of placement in relation to curing had no influence on microleakage. Microleakage was lower at enamel margins than at dentin margins; however, besides microleakage at the enamel-restoration interface, 37 of the 60 restored teeth (62%) displayed at least one white line in enamel adjacent to the composite restoration.     

The effect of different types of flowable restorative resins on microleakage of Class V cavities

This study evaluated the microleakage of Class V cavities restored with three different types of flowable resin restorative material and compared the effects of using their respective manufacturer's dentin adhesive or a different brand. Class V cavities with the occlusal margin in enamel and the gingival margin in dentin were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 48 non-carious human molars. The teeth were randomly assigned to three equal groups of 16. The first eight teeth in each group were restored with one of the flowable restorative materials (Filtek Flow, Dyract Flow, Admira Flow) using the manufacturer's recommended dentin adhesive (Single Bond, Prime & Bond NT, Admira Bond), and the remaining eight molars were restored using a different brand of dentin adhesive (Gluma Comfort Bond). The samples were thermocycled 200 times (5 degrees C-55 degrees C) with a one-minute dwell time. They were then immersed in a 2% basic fuchsin solution for 24 hours, sectioned and analyzed by stereomicroscopy. There was no statistically significant difference at the occlusal margins for either restoration used with its respective dentin adhesive. At the gingival margins, there was a significant difference among all groups. Flowable ormocer (Admira Flow/Admira Bond) displayed the least leakage at the gingival margins. When these flowable restoratives were used with a different brand of dentin adhesive, statistically significant differences were observed both on enamel and dentin. None of the restoratives tested fully prevented leakage at the gingival margins. No significant differences in microleakage were observed among the restorative materials used with respect to the manufacturer's dentin adhesive or a different brand except for Admira Flow restorative at the gingival margins. The gingival margins had significantly more microleakage than the occlusal margins (p < 0.05) except in the Admira Flow group, where microleakage at the occlusal and gingival margins was almost equal.     

Er,Cr:YSGG激光制洞对光固化复合树脂边缘微渗漏的影响

目的:比较在自酸蚀黏结剂的应用条件下,Er,Cr:YSGG激光制备与传统牙钻制备离体牙牙颈部洞对光固化复合树脂边缘微渗漏的影响。方法:将20个因正畸拔除的新鲜完整无龋损、无隐裂、无充填物的前磨牙随机分为两组(n=10),分别使用牙钻和Er,Cr:YSGG激光制备牙颈部洞。窝洞制备后均匀涂覆FL-BOND,用TPH复合树脂进行分层充填,打磨、抛光,37℃生理盐水中存放7 d后,进行500次温度循环实验(5±2)℃—(55±2)℃。将上述所有样本置0.5%碱性品红液中室温浸泡24 h后,沿牙体长轴通过修复体正中纵行剖开,采用染料渗入法和扫描电镜方法观察充填体微渗漏情况,运用SPSS 11.0软件包进行统计学处理。结果:牙钻制备组与激光组相比,无论牙合壁还是龈壁的染料渗入评分和边缘微缝隙宽度均无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论:在自酸蚀黏结剂的应用条件下,Er,Cr:YSGG激光制洞不能显著减少光固化复合树脂边缘微渗漏的发生。     

In vitro evaluation of microleakage of a flowable composite in Class V restorations

The aim of this study was to evaluate microleakage around class V restorations using a flowable composite compared to a hybrid composite. Forty class V cavities were prepared on buccal and lingual surfaces of 20 human teeth, with occlusal and cervical margins at the enamel and cementum/dentin levels, respectively. Specimens were divided into 2 groups with 10 samples each. Group 1: buccal cavities received Paama 2 (conventional bonding agent) + Wave (flowable composite); lingual cavities were restored with Paama 2 + Glacier (hybrid composite). Group 2: buccal cavities received Optibond Solo (self-priming bonding agent) + Wave; lingual cavities were restored with Optibond Solo + Glacier. After being stored in distilled water and finished, the teeth were thermocycled, immersed in a 50% silver nitrate solution and embedded in resin. They were sectioned and the depth of tracer penetration was scored. The results were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests. The restorations with flowable composite and those with hybrid composite from the same group showed similar results of microleakage for both occlusal and cervical margins. Optibond Solo improved the sealing of the restorations when compared with Paama 2 (p < 0.01). None of the restorative materials completely sealed the tooth/restoration interface at the cervical margins.     

Microleakage of resin composite restorations with glass-ceramic inserts.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of glass-ceramic inserts and different application techniques of resin composites on marginal leakage. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Three groups of 10 standardized, round, Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surface of 30 extracted human molar teeth. Group 1 received resin composite restorations, placed in one increment (bulk). Group 2 received resin composite restorations that were placed in two increments, and group 3 received resin composite restorations with beta-quartz ceramic inserts. After the teeth were thermocycled and placed in 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 hours, they were sectioned and examined for microleakage. RESULTS: On the occlusal margins, there was no statistically significant difference between the restorations placed with the incremental technique and the restorations with beta-quartz inserts. The restorations placed with the bulk technique had significantly more microleakage than did the others. On the gingival margins, the restorations with beta-quartz inserts exhibited significantly less microleakage than did the other groups. The restorations placed with the bulk technique showed significantly more dye penetration than did the others. CONCLUSION: The use of a glass-ceramic insert reduced the marginal leakage of Class V resin composite restorations.     

Effect of pre-heating resin composite on restoration microleakage

Improving the adaptation of resin composites during placement is necessary to increase durability and reduce microleakage. Flowable resin liners have been introduced to improve adaptation in composite restorations. In addition, a device that lowers the viscosity of regular dental composites has been introduced (Calset, AdDent Inc, Danbury, CT, USA). This device lowers the viscosity of composites by preheating them to 54.4 degrees C, which should lead to improved adaptation. This study compared microleakage in Class II composite restorations prepared using: 1) preheated resin composite, 2) unheated composite and 3) a flowable liner followed by unheated composite. Class II cavities were prepared on the mesial and distal surfaces of extracted third molars. Ten preparations were restored with resin composite (Esthet-X, Dentsply, York, PA, USA) for each of the following four techniques: Control (Esthet-X with Prime & Bond NT, Dentsply), Flowable (f) (as Control but used Esthet-X Flow liner), Preheated (p) (as Control but with preheating composite to 54.4 degrees C) and Delay (d) (as Preheated but followed by a 15-second delay before curing). The teeth were restored, finished, stored in distilled water for 24 hours, then thermocycled between water bath temperatures of 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C with a one-minute dwell time for 1000 cycles. Tooth apices were sealed with epoxy and varnish was applied to within 1 mm of the restoration margins. The teeth were placed in 0.5% basic fuschin dye for 24 hours, rinsed, then embedded in self-curing resin. The embedded teeth were sectioned mesiodistally with a slow-speed diamond saw, providing multiple sections per restoration. Microleakage was rated by two evaluators using a 0-4 ordinal scale at the occlusal and cervical margins of each restoration and light microscopy (40x). The data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA and pairwise testing with the Sign test (alpha=0.05). No statistical differences were observed among materials at the occlusal margin. However, at the cervical margin, the preheated samples P showed statistically lower microleakage than the controls and all other treatments. The D samples showed higher microleakage than the P and F samples. Ranked sum scores for the cervical were D (4516), C (3974), F (2756) and P (1958). There was a statistically greater amount of leakage at the cervical margins compared to the occlusal p<0.05. Preheating the composite resulted in significantly less microleakage at the cervical margins compared to the flowable liner and control. Delaying light curing of the preheated composite for 15 seconds (D) was counterproductive and led to increased microleakage.     

The effect of occlusal loading on the microleakage of class V restorations

OBJECTIVE: This in vitro study evaluated the microleakage of Class V cavities restored with a resin composite and different adhesive systems after occlusal loading. METHODS & MATERIALS: Standardized box-shaped Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal side of 135 non-carious human premolars. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups of 45 premolars each and restored as follows: Group 1-two-step total-etch adhesive (Single Bond, 3M) + resin composite (Supreme, 3M ESPE); Group 2-two-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE, Kuraray) + resin composite and Group 3-one-step self-etch adhesive (Xeno III, Dentsply) + resin composite. The restorations were finished with aluminum oxide discs (Sof-Lex, 3M). Fifteen teeth in each group received 10,000 x 100 N and 250 N occlusal loads, respectively, and the remaining 15 teeth served as the control. The premolars were immersed in 2% methylene blue for 24 hours. The dye penetration was examined under a stereomicroscope, and the results were statistically analyzed by Kruskal Wallis, Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests to determine differences between the groups. RESULTS: Gingival margins showed more dye penetration than occlusal margins in all the tested groups (p<0.05). In all the tested adhesive systems, 100 N occlusal loading did not change dye penetration; however, Groups 1 and 2 exhibited better marginal sealing than Group 3 at the enamel margins under 250 N occlusal loading. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it may be concluded that enamel margins provided better marginal sealing than dentin/cementum margins and the two-step self-etch adhesive exhibited better marginal sealing than an all-in-one adhesive at the enamel margins under 250 N occlusal loading.     

The effect of fibre insertion on fracture resistance of root filled molar teeth with MOD preparations restored with composite

AIM: To evaluate the effect of using flowable composite with or without leno woven ultra high modulus polyethylene fibre reinforcement on fracture resistance of root filled mandibular molars with mesio-occlusodistal (MOD) preparations. METHODOLOGY: Sixty sound extracted human mandibular molars were randomly assigned to five groups (n = 12). Group 1 did not receive any preparation. From groups 2 to 5, the teeth were root filled and MOD preparations were created. Group 2 remained unrestored. Group 3 was restored with a dentine bonding system (DBS; SE Bond, Kuraray, Japan) and composite resin (CR) (AP-X; Kuraray). In group 4, flowable composite resin (Protect Liner F; Kuraray) was used before restoring teeth with CR. In group 5, leno woven ultra high modulus polyethylene ribbon fibre (Ribbond, Seattle, WA, USA) was inserted into the cavities in a buccal to lingual direction and the teeth were then restored with DBS and CR. After finishing and polishing, the specimens were stored in 100% humidity at 37 degrees C for 1 day. Compressive loading of the teeth was performed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm min(-1). The mean load necessary to fracture the samples were recorded in newtons (N) and were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post-hoc test. RESULTS: The mean load necessary to fracture the samples in each group were (in N): group 1: 1676.75 +/-154.63(a), group 2: 376.51 +/- 37.36(b), group 3: 733.23 +/- 133.33(c), group 4: 786.48 +/- 145.34(c), group 5: 943.63 +/- 121.15(d). There were statistically significant differences between the groups annotated with different letters. CONCLUSIONS: (i) Use of flowable composite resin under composite restorations had no effect on fracture resistance of root filled molar teeth with MOD preparations, (ii) use of polyethylene ribbon fibre under composite restorations in root filled teeth with MOD preparations significantly increased fracture strength.     

The effect of flowable resin composite on microleakage in class V cavities

This in vitro study investigated the microleakage of flowable resin composite as a restorative material and as a liner (either light cured separately or co-cured with hybrid resin composite) in Class V cavities. A light-cured hybrid resin composite was used as a control. Twenty extracted human premolars were prepared with standardized Class V cavity outlines on the buccal and lingual surfaces. The occlusal margin of the cavities was on enamel and the gingival margin was on dentin. One bottle adhesive system (Single Bond) was used after etching enamel and dentin with 34.5% phosphoric acid for 15 seconds. The cavities were randomly divided into four groups of 10 each and restored according to the manufacturers' instructions: Group I-Hybrid resin composite (Z100); Group II-Flowable resin composite (Filtek Flow); Group III-Flowable resin composite (Filtek Flow)+Hybrid resin composite (Z100); light cured separately; Group IV-Flowable resin composite (Filtek Flow)+Hybrid resin composite (Z100); co-cured. The samples were thermocycled 200 times with a 30-second dwell time. They were then immersed in a 0.5% basic fuchsin solution for 24 hours, sectioned and analyzed by stereomicroscopy. The degree of dye penetration was recorded and analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. The results of this study indicate that there was no leakage at the occlusal margin for either restoration. Statistically significant differences were found among the groups at the gingival margin. No statistically significant difference was observed between the occlusal and gingival margins except in Group IV. The combination of flowable resin composite and hybrid composite light cured separately yielded the best result in this study. The most leakage was observed when this combination was co-cured. The resistance to microleakage of flowable resin composite as a restorative material is similar to that of hybrid resin composite.     

Microleakage of Class II packable resin composites lined with flowables: an in vitro study

Flowable resin materials have been suggested as liners beneath packable composites to improve marginal integrity. This investigation evaluated the effect of low-viscosity liners on microleakage in Class II packable composite restorations. Twenty Class II cavities were prepared in extracted third molars for each of four packable composites (Heliomolar HB, Prodigy Condensable, Surefil and Tetric Condense). Ten restorations were placed for each material with their corresponding bonding agent per manufacturer's suggestion; in addition, 10 were placed with the flowable liner recommended by the manufacturer for that material. Samples were finished, stored in distilled water for at least 24 hours and thermocycled for 1,000 cycles between 5 degrees and 55 degrees C with a one-minute dwell time. Apices were sealed with epoxy cement and the teeth were varnished to within 1 mm of the margins. Samples were placed in 0.5% basic fuschin dye for 24 hours, rinsed, embedded in resin and sectioned to produce multiple sections. Microleakage was rated (0-4 ordinal scale) at both the occlusal and cervical margins. Data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA for main effect and ranked sum analysis for pairwise testing (alpha = 0.05). All materials, either separately or in combination with a flowable liner, had greater leakage scores at the cervical margin compared to the occlusal margin. All packable systems tested did not yield a reduction in microleakage with the use of a flowable liner in vitro; however, the packable system with the flowable compomer used as a liner yielded significantly less overall microleakage compared to the three systems that used a resin composite liner.     

Microleakage of Class V resin composite restorations placed with self-etching adhesives

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Although they are widely available, there is insufficient information about the capability of self-etching adhesives in sealing the margins of resin composite restorations. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the in vitro microleakage of Class V resin composite restorations placed using a strong pH self-etching adhesive, an intermediate pH self-etching adhesive, and an adhesive with a separate etchant and primer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Class V resin composite restorations (n = 8) were placed in prepared cavities in extracted human third molars using 2 self-etching dentin adhesives, Prompt L-Pop (Strong pH) or One-Up Bond F (Intermediate pH), and an adhesive with a separate etchant and primer, ScotchBond Multi-Purpose. The restored teeth received 1000 thermal cycles between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C water baths with a 1-minute dwell time and were subsequently subjected to a methylene blue dye challenge and sectioned. The sectioned specimens were scored as demonstrating none, slight, or severe leakage (n=16). Ranked data were analyzed using a 1-way analysis of variance at a 5% confidence level. RESULTS: The only leakage observed was along gingival margins, with an incidence of 31% for Prompt L-Pop and One-Up Bond F, and 50% for ScotchBond Multi-Purpose. CONCLUSION: No significant differences in marginal leakage were found among the adhesives tested.