UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Comparison between different flow application techniques: SDR vs flowable composite


Zaruba, Markus; Wegehaupt, Florian J; Attin, Thomas (2013). Comparison between different flow application techniques: SDR vs flowable composite. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 15(2):115-121.

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of layer thickness of flowable composites on the marginal adaptation of Class II fillings after thermomechanical loading (TML).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty standardized Class II box cavities were prepared under simulation of intrapulpal pressure with gingival margins located 1 mm below the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) in dentin. The samples were evenly distributed into six groups (A to F). After adhesive (XPBond) application, box preparations were filled with a first increment of either a nanohybrid composite (A, D) Ceram.X mono, or with one of two flowable materials SDR (B, E) or x-Flow (C, F). The first increments were 1 (A,B,C) or 4 mm (D,E,F) thick. All cavities were finally filled incrementally with Ceram.X mono. Replicas were prepared before and after TML (1.2 x 106 cycles; 5/50°C; maximum load 49 N). Replicas were evaluated for marginal adaptation (tooth/composite) using scanning electron microscopy (200X). The percentage of continuous margins was compared between and within groups before and after TML using ANOVA and Scheffé's post-hoc tests.
RESULTS: For group F before TML, adaptation of cervical margins located in dentin was compromised compared to the other groups (p < 0.05). After TML, at the same location, group F showed significantly worse adaptation compared with groups A to C and E (p < 0.05), but no difference to group D was found. The marginal integrity of all interfaces before and after TML was significantly worse in group F compared with all other groups (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Different flow application techniques for Class II cavities have an influence on the marginal adaptation (before/after TML). Applying a 4-mm first increment, both Ceram.X mono and SDR showed no differences vs groups in which the first increment was 1 mm thick.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of layer thickness of flowable composites on the marginal adaptation of Class II fillings after thermomechanical loading (TML).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty standardized Class II box cavities were prepared under simulation of intrapulpal pressure with gingival margins located 1 mm below the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) in dentin. The samples were evenly distributed into six groups (A to F). After adhesive (XPBond) application, box preparations were filled with a first increment of either a nanohybrid composite (A, D) Ceram.X mono, or with one of two flowable materials SDR (B, E) or x-Flow (C, F). The first increments were 1 (A,B,C) or 4 mm (D,E,F) thick. All cavities were finally filled incrementally with Ceram.X mono. Replicas were prepared before and after TML (1.2 x 106 cycles; 5/50°C; maximum load 49 N). Replicas were evaluated for marginal adaptation (tooth/composite) using scanning electron microscopy (200X). The percentage of continuous margins was compared between and within groups before and after TML using ANOVA and Scheffé's post-hoc tests.
RESULTS: For group F before TML, adaptation of cervical margins located in dentin was compromised compared to the other groups (p < 0.05). After TML, at the same location, group F showed significantly worse adaptation compared with groups A to C and E (p < 0.05), but no difference to group D was found. The marginal integrity of all interfaces before and after TML was significantly worse in group F compared with all other groups (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Different flow application techniques for Class II cavities have an influence on the marginal adaptation (before/after TML). Applying a 4-mm first increment, both Ceram.X mono and SDR showed no differences vs groups in which the first increment was 1 mm thick.

Citations

1 citation in Web of Science®
1 citation in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

2 downloads since deposited on 13 Jan 2014
0 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2013
Deposited On:13 Jan 2014 13:30
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 17:21
Publisher:Quintessence Publishing
ISSN:1461-5185
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a28672
PubMed ID:23534015
Permanent URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-87923

Download

[img]
Content: Accepted Version
Filetype: PDF - Registered users only
Size: 714kB
View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations