Dental Materials Journal · 2006 · 33 citations · 30 references
DentistryDental Materials ScienceRestorative DentistryCavity PreparationDental MaterialsProsthodontic MaterialsAdhesive DentistryComposite Resin RestorationsComposite ResinsDental AdhesivesDental CompositesDirect Composite RestorationsAdhesive Bonding SystemsBonded RestorationsDental Marginal LeakageFlowable Composite RestorationsFlowable Resin CompositesMarginal SealingResin-based CompositesSealing Ability Of Restorations
This study evaluated the effect of two adhesive systems and four resin-based composites on the marginal sealing and cavity wall adaptation of restorations with different C-factors. Cylindrical cavities, 1 mm deep and 3 mm in diameter (C-factor=2.3) or 2 mm in diameter (C-factor=3), were prepared on superficial bovine dentin surfaces. The teeth were restored with Clearfil SE Bond or Single Bond adhesive system followed by hybrid (Photo Clearfil Bright or Z100) or flowable (Filtek Flow or Estelite LV) resin composite. After thermocycling, a dye penetration test was carried out to evaluate the degree of marginal leakage and cavity-wall gap formation. Cavity-wall gap formation increased when the C-factor increased from 2.3 to 3, except for Estelite LV resin composite. In terms of marginal sealing, Clearfil SE Bond showed better performance than Single Bond. When using Clearfil SE Bond, flowable composites improved resin composite adaptation to the cavity wall compared with hybrid composites.
30