|
| 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
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.59428
|
|
|
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]* |
|
 |
|
Users online:
