Indian Journal of Dental Research

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Year
: 2009  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 394--399

SEM evaluation of marginal sealing on composite restorations using different photoactivation and composite insertion methods


Murilo Baena Lopes1, Leticia A Costa2, Simonides Consani2, Alcides Junior Gonini1, Mario AC Sinhoreti2 
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

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«SQ»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«SQ»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.


How to cite this article:
Lopes MB, Costa LA, Consani S, Gonini AJ, Sinhoreti MA. SEM evaluation of marginal sealing on composite restorations using different photoactivation and composite insertion methods.Indian J Dent Res 2009;20:394-399


How to cite this URL:
Lopes MB, Costa LA, Consani S, Gonini AJ, Sinhoreti MA. SEM evaluation of marginal sealing on composite restorations using different photoactivation and composite insertion methods. Indian J Dent Res [serial online] 2009 [cited 2021 Nov 30 ];20:394-399
Available from: https://www.ijdr.in/article.asp?issn=0970-9290;year=2009;volume=20;issue=4;spage=394;epage=399;aulast=Lopes;type=0