Kogan FE, Vasconcelos CME, Arteaga VR, Gutiérrez VDH

Language: Spanish
References: 9
Page: 203-208
PDF size: 516.83 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the marginal sealing and internal adaptation obtained in direct restorations when using a conventional technique involving nano-filled resin vs. ultrasonic placement using low-polymerization shrinkage resins, and four different types of adhesives in class V preparations on extracted teeth. Material and methods: An experimental, comparative, analytical study was conducted on 32 extracted teeth with class V preparation (2 mm occlusogingival, 2 mm mesiodistal, and 2 mm depth). These were divided into 2 groups: one in which the teeth were restored using a conventional technique with nano-filled resin, and the other, in which an ultrasonic technique using a low-shrinkage resin was employed. In turn, each group was subdivided into 4 groups, in which different Kerr^TM adhesives were used (OptiBond All-In One, OptiBond Solo Plus, OptiBond FL, and OptiBond XTR). The teeth were cut and subjected to SEM analysis using a FEI Quanta 200 Scanning Electron Microscope. The information obtained was analyzed using SPSS 17.0 software and the study groups compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Results: Statistically significant differences were found in marginal sealing and internal adaptation, with the ultrasound technique using a low-polymerization shrinkage resin (p ‹ 0.05) proving to be superior. As regards the type of adhesive used, significant differences were found using OptiBond FL^TM, which showed better interface (p ‹ 0.05). Conclusions: The ultrasonic technique pre sented better marginal sealing and internal adaptation, with OptiBond FL^TM providing the best adaptation.

REFERENCES

1. Rueggeberg F. From vulcanite to vinyl, a history of resins in restorative dentistry. J Prosthet Dentistry. 2002; 87: 364-379.

2. van Meerbeek B, Perdigao J, Gladys S, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Enamel and dentin adhesion. In: Schwartz R, Summitt J, Robbins W. Fundamentals of operative dentistry. A contemporary approach. Carol Stream: Quintessence Publishing; 1996.

3. Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Ruggerib A, Cadenaro M, Di Lenarda R. Dental adhesion review: Aging and stability of the bonded interface. Dental Materials. 2008; 24 (1): 90-101.

4. Thompson J. SonicFill™ Volumetric Shrinkage. NOVA Southeas­tern University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. SonicFill Portfolio of Scientific Research. Kerr Corporation. Orange, CA; 2001, p. 8.

5. Daronch M, Rueggerberg F, Moss K. Clinically relevant issues related to pre-heating composites. J Esthetic Restor Dent. 2006; 18: 340-351.

6. Sarrett D. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composites restorations. Dental Materials. 2005; 21: 9-20.

7. Begino R, Tran C, Dreschler U. SonicFill Microleakage. SonicFill Portfolio of Scientific Research. Kerr Corporation. Orange, CA; 2015. p. 7.

8. Blunck U. Evaluation of the effectiveness of different adhesive systems in combination with SonicFill (Kerr) in class I cavities. SonicFill Portfolio of Scientific Research. Kerr Corporation. Orange, CA; 2015. pp. 10-11.

9. Luu C, Drechsler U. Viscosity change of SonicFill™ when subjected to sonic vibration. SonicFill Portfolio of Scientific Research. Kerr Corporation. Orange, CA; 2015. pp. 4-5.