+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Marginal adaptation of composite restorations versus hybrid ionomer/composite sandwich restorations



Marginal adaptation of composite restorations versus hybrid ionomer/composite sandwich restorations



Operative Dentistry 22(1): 21-29



The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the approximal marginal quality of composite fillings using a dentin bonding system to the marginal quality of hybrid ionomer/composite sandwich restorations. Forty-eight standardized class 2 cavity preparations were prepared in caries-free, human third molars. Twelve preparations at a time were filled either with a composite using the matching dentin bonding system, SZ (Scotchbond MP/Z100) or PP (PROBOND/Prisma TPH) or with hybrid ionomer/composite sandwich fillings VZ (Vitremer/Z100) or DP (Dyract/Prisma TPH). Margins were evaluated before and after thermomechanical loading (TCML) (5000 cycles [+5 degrees C/+55 degrees C], 72.5 N [1,7 Hz]) by quantitative scanning electron microscope analysis using an image analyzing system. Furthermore, microleakage was assessed by dye penetration before and after TCML. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney test at the 0.05 level of significance. SEM analysis after TCML showed significantly fewer marginal gaps at the material/dentin interface with VZ (2.2%), DP (7.3%), and PP (6.0%) compared to SZ (29.6%). After TCML, SZ showed significantly more marginal gaps at the material/dentin interface, whereas VZ, DP, and PP were not susceptible to TCML. PP showed the highest percentage in marginal swelling before (18.2%) and after TCML (15.9%), while VZ showed no marginal swelling at all. VZ showed significantly fewer marginal gaps at the composite/hybrid ionomer interface than DP. After TCML there was no significant difference in marginal gaps between the hybrid ionomer/enamel and the hybrid ionomer/dentin interface for both Vitremer and Dyract. Using the sandwich technique the Z100/enamel interface had significantly more marginal gaps than all other composite/enamel interfaces after TCML. There was no significant difference in microleakage between the test groups at the material/dentin interface. SEM analysis and dye penetration showed that hybrid ionomer/composite sandwich restorations have good marginal qualities and may be an alternative to composite restorations using a dentin bonding system.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 046623060

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 9227124


Related references

Marginal seal of Class V composite/glass ionomer sandwich restorations. Restorative Dentistry 4(4): 80-1, 83-5, 87, 1988

In vitro evaluation of marginal and internal adaptation after occlusal stressing of indirect class II composite restorations with different resinous bases and interface treatments. "Post-fatigue adaptation of indirect composite restorations". Clinical Oral Investigations 16(5): 1385-1393, 2015

Effect of flowable composite liner and glass ionomer liner on class II gingival marginal adaptation of direct composite restorations with different bonding strategies. Journal of Dentistry 42(5): 619-625, 2016

Two-year evaluation of class II resin-modified glass ionomer cement/composite open sandwich and composite restorations. Clinical Oral Investigations 4(3): 133-139, 2000

Marginal adaptation of direct composite and sandwich restorations in Class II cavities with cervical margins in dentine. Journal of Dentistry 27(2): 119-128, 1999

A 6-year evaluation of a direct composite resin inlay/onlay system and glass ionomer cement-composite resin sandwich restorations. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 52(6): 368-376, 1994

Effect of prepolymerized composite megafiller on the marginal adaptation of composite restorations in cavities with different C-factors: an SEM study. Indian Journal of Dental Research 21(4): 500-505, 2011

Marginal and internal adaptation of Class II ormocer and hybrid resin composite restorations before and after load cycling. Clinical Oral Investigations 8(3): 123-129, 2004

Marginal adaptation and microtensile bond strength of composite indirect restorations bonded to dentin treated with adhesive and low-viscosity composite. Dental Materials 23(3): 279-287, 2006

Marginal adaptation of Class 5 composite restorations: retention grooves versus enamel and dentin bonding. Egyptian Dental Journal 41(3): 1271-1275, 1995

Marginal leakage of combinations of glass-ionomer and composite resin restorations. Journal of Clinical Dentistry 7(1): 13-16, 1996

Marginal leakage in class v composite restorations with glass ionomer liners. Journal of Dental Research 67(SPEC ISSUE MAR): 195, 1988

The border seal in restorations of class-V lesions with glass ionomer cement and composite (the sandwich filling). Schweizer Monatsschrift für Zahnmedizin 100(1): 29-37, 1990

Failure Rate of Direct High-Viscosity Glass-Ionomer Versus Hybrid Resin Composite Restorations in Posterior Permanent Teeth - a Systematic Review. Open Dentistry Journal 9: 438-448, 2015

Marginal leakage of restorations using a glass-ionomer liner in bonding composite resins to dentin. Mississippi Dental Association Journal 46(1): 20-23, 1990