Indian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental Research
HOME | ABOUT US | EDITORIAL BOARD | AHEAD OF PRINT | CURRENT ISSUE | ARCHIVES | INSTRUCTIONS | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISE | CONTACT
Indian Journal of Dental Research   Login   |  Users online: 255

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size         

 


 
ORIGINAL RESEARCH Table of Contents   
Year : 2009  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 394-399
SEM evaluation of marginal sealing on composite restorations using different photoactivation and composite insertion methods


1 Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of North Parana - UNOPAR, Londrina, Brazil
2 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, Brazil

Correspondence Address:
Murilo Baena Lopes
Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of North Parana - UNOPAR, Londrina
Brazil
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.59428

Rights and Permissions

Aim: This in vitro study evaluates the influence of marginal sealing methods in composite restorations with different adhesive systems submitted to mechanical load. Materials and Methods: Eighty bovine incisor crowns were embedded in Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) molds with the buccal surface exposed, where cavities (4mm x 4mm x 3mm) were made. Samples had the adhesive systems, Single Bond or Clearfil SE Bond, applied according to the manufacturer's recommendations. The cavities were filled with a Z-250 composite according to the restoration technique (bulk filling or three increments) and photoactivation (conventional, soft start, pulsatile light or light-emitting diode [LED]). The samples were duplicated with epoxy resin for scanning electron microscopy observations. Samples were also submitted to mechanical load (200,000 cycles; 2 Hz) and new replicas were made. Results: The results, in percentages, were submitted to ANOVA followed by Tukey's test (P < 0.05). There was statistical difference between the cycle group (23.84%) and the non cycle group (18.63%). Comparing the restoration technique, there was no statistical difference between bulk filling (19.62%) and three increments (22.84%). There was no statistical difference among the groups: Pulsatile light (24.38%), soft start (22.75%), LED (21.47%) or conventional (16.34%). Furthermore, there were no statistical differences between the adhesive systems: Clearfil SE Bond (21.32%) and Single Bond (20.83%). Conclusions: The photoactivation methods, the restorative techniques and the adhesive systems did not influence gap formation.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article

 
 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
  Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
  Reader Comments
  Email Alert *
  Add to My List *
 
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3848    
    Printed133    
    Emailed4    
    PDF Downloaded345    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 5    

Recommend this journal