Scan Electron Microscope Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation of Alkasite, Bulk-fil Resin Composite, Resin Modified Glass Ionomer, and High Viscosity Glass Ionomer Restorative Materials | ||||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 10, Volume 68, Issue 2 - Serial Number 5, April 2022, Page 1859-1866 PDF (912.63 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2022.113573.1931 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Rabab Mehesen  1; Husn Jazar2; Noha Sheta2; Marmar Montaser 1
| ||||
| 1Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt. | ||||
| 2Department of Biomaterials Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the marginal adaptation of class V cavities restored with Alkasite, Bulk-fil Resin Composite (BFRC), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), and conventional high viscosity glass ionomer (HVGI) restorative materials. Materials and Methods: Fifty Class V cavities (2 mm deep, 3 mm in width, and 3 mm in height) were prepared in sound extracted human molar teeth, where the coronal margins were in enamel while the cervical margins were at CEJ. Four different restorative materials were tested (n = 10): Alkasite (Cention), BFRC (Tetric N ceram Bulkfil), RMGI (Fuji II LC), and HVGI (Equia Forte). The teeth were evaluated for their marginal adaptation with SEM after thermocycling. Results: One Way ANOVA test was used to compare among all the restorative materials and showed significant differences. Student t test was used to compare between enamel and dentin margins showing significant differences for all groups. Conclusion: Alkasite-based restorative material had the ability to ensure tooth/restoration seal and preserve margin integrity. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| SEM; Alkasite; bulk-fill RC; HVGI; RMGI | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 298 PDF Download: 416 |
||||
