IADR Abstract Archives
Evaluation of Novel Instrument for Composite Material Placement
Objectives: To evaluate and compare Class I and Class V composite restorations for microleakage and voids with traditional (place, sculpt, and contour) methods versus novel instrument (C-Shape It).
Methods: Extracted molars were cleaned with pumice and randomly divided into 2 composite material groups (n= 5/gp); Control (2 groups) and Treatment (2 groups). Teeth were prepped by 2 calibrated dentists and 4 clinicians were involved in the placement of Filtek Supreme Ultra (3M ESPE) and Harmonize (Kerr) composite materials. All preparations were calibrated, composites placement (Etch and Bond) and light cured following manufacturers’ recommendations for both traditional and novel instrument. Samples were thermocycled and placed in 0.5% fusion solution for 24 hours. Teeth were sectioned in buccolingual direction with a minimum of four sections per tooth. Sections were examined under light microscope at 50x and scored. Microleakage Criteria: 0) no dye penetration; 1) dye penetration less than one-third of the cavity wall; 2) dye penetration less than two-thirds of the cavity wall; 3) dye penetration less than three-thirds of the cavity wall; 4) dye penetration to the full extent of the cavity wall, reaching the axial wall or penetrating it. Results were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U Test.
Results: In Class I restorations, novel instrument (mean/SD = 1.0 ± 1.6) exhibited significantly less microleakage in comparison to traditional method (mean/SD = 2.2 ± 1.8) (P<0.05). Microleakage in Class V restorations was not significant with the novel instrument (mean/SD = 3.2 ± 1.5) versus traditional (mean/SD = 3.74 ± 0.93). Material voids differences were not statistically significant between the two methods for Class I or Class V restoration.
Conclusions: The C-Shape It demonstrated superior composite placement in Class I restorations, lesser voids in Class V compared to traditional instruments. The C-Shape It could be a viable alternative to the traditional composite placement instrument.
Methods: Extracted molars were cleaned with pumice and randomly divided into 2 composite material groups (n= 5/gp); Control (2 groups) and Treatment (2 groups). Teeth were prepped by 2 calibrated dentists and 4 clinicians were involved in the placement of Filtek Supreme Ultra (3M ESPE) and Harmonize (Kerr) composite materials. All preparations were calibrated, composites placement (Etch and Bond) and light cured following manufacturers’ recommendations for both traditional and novel instrument. Samples were thermocycled and placed in 0.5% fusion solution for 24 hours. Teeth were sectioned in buccolingual direction with a minimum of four sections per tooth. Sections were examined under light microscope at 50x and scored. Microleakage Criteria: 0) no dye penetration; 1) dye penetration less than one-third of the cavity wall; 2) dye penetration less than two-thirds of the cavity wall; 3) dye penetration less than three-thirds of the cavity wall; 4) dye penetration to the full extent of the cavity wall, reaching the axial wall or penetrating it. Results were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U Test.
Results: In Class I restorations, novel instrument (mean/SD = 1.0 ± 1.6) exhibited significantly less microleakage in comparison to traditional method (mean/SD = 2.2 ± 1.8) (P<0.05). Microleakage in Class V restorations was not significant with the novel instrument (mean/SD = 3.2 ± 1.5) versus traditional (mean/SD = 3.74 ± 0.93). Material voids differences were not statistically significant between the two methods for Class I or Class V restoration.
Conclusions: The C-Shape It demonstrated superior composite placement in Class I restorations, lesser voids in Class V compared to traditional instruments. The C-Shape It could be a viable alternative to the traditional composite placement instrument.
IMAGES
3172905_File000001.jpg
3172905_File000001.jpg