Comparative Study of Different Cavity Configuration Effect on Marginal Adaptation of Bulk Fill Versus Conventional Resin Composites | ||||
| Al-Azhar Assiut Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 4, Volume 4, Issue 2, October 2021, Page 129-139 PDF (1.91 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/aadj.2021.208204 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Author | ||||
| Hamed I. Mohamed* | ||||
| Operative Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine, (Cairo, boys), Al-Azhar University, Egypt. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Aim : The aim of the study is to evaluate the effect of different cavity configuration (C-factor) on marginal adaptation of Sonic fill versus Ceram X conventional composite resin composites. Subjects and methods :A total of 90 freshly extracted human non carious premolar teeth was used and divided randomly according to tested materials into two main equal groups (45 each); Sonicfill and Ceram X resin composites. Each group was further divided according to the cavity configuration into three equal subgroups of (15 each); flat tooth surface, class II cavity and class V cavity. Each subgroup was divided subdivisions according to storage time into three (5 each); one month, three months and six months. After storage time and dye immersion in silver nitrate 50% wt for 12 hours. Each tooth was splatted longitudinally into 2 halves and inspected under stereomicroscope to evaluate the marginal leakage of tooth restoration interface. Finally, a randomly representative specimen from each group was investigated under Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) to evaluate the qualitative examination. The results of this study revealed that less microleakage of Sonic-fill than Ceram X. C-factors do not completely eliminate the microleakage with both bulk fill resin materials. There was significant difference between flat tooth surface and both of classII and classV. Sonicfill and Ceram X showed high leakage score at six months storage time.Aim: This study aimed to compare the fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored by Ceram x SphereTEC one composite resin, bioactive restorative material (ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative), Alkasite restorative material (Cention-N) and Zirconia reinforced glass ionomer (Zirconomer). Subjects and Methods: Forty maxillary premolars were assigned into four equal groups according to the restorative material used . Group A: Teeth restored with Ceram x SphereTEC one. Group B: Teeth restored with ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative. Group C: Teeth restored with Cention-N and group D: Teeth restored with Zirconomer. Standardized flat MOD cavities after root canal treatment were prepared for all groups. Restorative materials were applied according to manufacture instructions. The teeth were mounted in universal testing machine and subjected to compressive force till fracture. Fracture patterns were evaluated under a stereomicroscope at magnification of 12×. Data was statistically analyzed. Results: For all groups, the mean fracture resistance values were 1447.82 N, 1452.28 N, 1250.42 N, and 920.39 N, respectively. Statistical analyses showed no significant differences in the mean fracture resistances between group A, group B and group C (p < 0.05). There were significant differences between group D and the other groups (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Ceram x SphereTEC one, Activa Bioactive Restorative and Cention-N have a high similar fracture resistances values in restoration of endodontically treated teeth, while Zirconomer has the lower value. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Cavity Configuration; Marginal Adaptation; bulk fill; conventional Resin Composites; leakage | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 121 PDF Download: 307 |
||||
