IADR Abstract Archives
GAP EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT RESIN-FILLING TECHNIQUES FOR CLASS-II RESTORATIONS – A MICRO-CT ANALYSIS VALIDATED BY SEM
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate gap formation of different resin composite filling techniques in class II restorations, seen by micro-computed tomography scans and scanning electronic microscopy(SEM).
Methods: Standardized class II cavities were prepared in 30 human third-molars(n=6) and analyzed in distal and mesial views. Prime & Bond Universal adhesive(Dentsply) was applied in all teeth according to manufacturers’ instructions and randomly divided in 5 groups: G1:SS+HIT(Spectra Smart + Horizontal Incremental Technique);G2:SS+OBL(Spectra Smart + Oblique Incremental Technique);G3: SDR+BFT (Surefil SDR Flow + Bulk Fill Technique);G4:SDR+SS(Surefil SDR Flow placed on the pulpal floors from the mesial and distal boxes from the class II cavity (not yet light-cured), followed by application of conventional composite Spectra Smart and light curing incrementally together with the horizontal technique); and G5: BEZ+BFT (Bulk EZ+Bulk Fill Technique). All light-curing procedures were performed for 20s (High mode, Bluephase Style 20i). Teeth were scanned before and after resin composite application (1st scan–empty tooth; 2nd scan–filled tooth) by micro-computed tomography. Acquired mCT data were imported into a workstation and evaluated with Amira software looking for gaps at mesial and distal margins. Gaps were considered when misadjustments were bigger than 0.06nm according to previous findings. Data were submitted to statistical analysis (1-way ANOVA and LSD post-hoc test). Validation of the mCT analysis was performed by scanning electronic microscopy (SEM).
Results: G5 showed the lowest % of gap formation, statistically similar to G4 (p=.20).G4 also showed statistical similarities to G1(p=.41) and G3(p=.13).G2 showed the highest percentages of gap formation, statistically similar to G1(p=.10),but different than the rest of the groups (p<0.05).SEM images validated the mCT technique.
Conclusions: Different techniques promoted different percentages of gap formations on class II cavities.The dual resin composite BEZ and the use of SDR non-polymerized plus the use of a horizontal filling technique showed the best marginal adaptations (less % of gap formation). The mCT technique was validated for visualization of gap formation after being analyzed by SEM. MCT presents the advantage of being a non-destructive technique.
Methods: Standardized class II cavities were prepared in 30 human third-molars(n=6) and analyzed in distal and mesial views. Prime & Bond Universal adhesive(Dentsply) was applied in all teeth according to manufacturers’ instructions and randomly divided in 5 groups: G1:SS+HIT(Spectra Smart + Horizontal Incremental Technique);G2:SS+OBL(Spectra Smart + Oblique Incremental Technique);G3: SDR+BFT (Surefil SDR Flow + Bulk Fill Technique);G4:SDR+SS(Surefil SDR Flow placed on the pulpal floors from the mesial and distal boxes from the class II cavity (not yet light-cured), followed by application of conventional composite Spectra Smart and light curing incrementally together with the horizontal technique); and G5: BEZ+BFT (Bulk EZ+Bulk Fill Technique). All light-curing procedures were performed for 20s (High mode, Bluephase Style 20i). Teeth were scanned before and after resin composite application (1st scan–empty tooth; 2nd scan–filled tooth) by micro-computed tomography. Acquired mCT data were imported into a workstation and evaluated with Amira software looking for gaps at mesial and distal margins. Gaps were considered when misadjustments were bigger than 0.06nm according to previous findings. Data were submitted to statistical analysis (1-way ANOVA and LSD post-hoc test). Validation of the mCT analysis was performed by scanning electronic microscopy (SEM).
Results: G5 showed the lowest % of gap formation, statistically similar to G4 (p=.20).G4 also showed statistical similarities to G1(p=.41) and G3(p=.13).G2 showed the highest percentages of gap formation, statistically similar to G1(p=.10),but different than the rest of the groups (p<0.05).SEM images validated the mCT technique.
Conclusions: Different techniques promoted different percentages of gap formations on class II cavities.The dual resin composite BEZ and the use of SDR non-polymerized plus the use of a horizontal filling technique showed the best marginal adaptations (less % of gap formation). The mCT technique was validated for visualization of gap formation after being analyzed by SEM. MCT presents the advantage of being a non-destructive technique.