PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of restoration technique and adhesive system on the post-operative sensitivity and marginal adaptation of Class I occlusal composite resin restorations placed in vivo. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 48 Class I cavities were restored in vivo according to one of three protocols: (1) Scotchbond Multi-Purpose/P50 placed in increments; (2) Scotchbond Multi-Purpose/P50 placed in bulk, and (3) Clearfil Liner Bond 2/Clearfil Ray Posterior placed in bulk. Post-operative sensitivity and sensitivity on loading were recorded 5-7 weeks after placement of the restorations; the teeth were cautiously extracted, immersed in a dye solution and sectioned. SEM observations were made from epoxy resin replicas. Microleakage and gap formation was assessed. RESULTS: No differences among adhesive systems or restoration procedures were found for microleakage. Post-operative sensitivity was reported in 14% of all teeth but was absent in the Clearfil Liner Bond 2 group. Sensitivity on loading was experienced by patients in 56% of the restorations. Group 1: nine teeth; Group 2: 15 teeth; Group 3: three teeth. Differences were statistically significant for all three groups. The SEM analysis showed that restorations placed in two layers showed less gaps than restorations placed in bulk.
PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of restoration technique and adhesive system on the post-operative sensitivity and marginal adaptation of Class I occlusal composite resin restorations placed in vivo. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 48 Class I cavities were restored in vivo according to one of three protocols: (1) Scotchbond Multi-Purpose/P50 placed in increments; (2) Scotchbond Multi-Purpose/P50 placed in bulk, and (3) Clearfil Liner Bond 2/Clearfil Ray Posterior placed in bulk. Post-operative sensitivity and sensitivity on loading were recorded 5-7 weeks after placement of the restorations; the teeth were cautiously extracted, immersed in a dye solution and sectioned. SEM observations were made from epoxy resin replicas. Microleakage and gap formation was assessed. RESULTS: No differences among adhesive systems or restoration procedures were found for microleakage. Post-operative sensitivity was reported in 14% of all teeth but was absent in the Clearfil Liner Bond 2 group. Sensitivity on loading was experienced by patients in 56% of the restorations. Group 1: nine teeth; Group 2: 15 teeth; Group 3: three teeth. Differences were statistically significant for all three groups. The SEM analysis showed that restorations placed in two layers showed less gaps than restorations placed in bulk.
Authors: R Hickel; J-F Roulet; S Bayne; S D Heintze; I A Mjör; M Peters; V Rousson; R Randall; G Schmalz; M Tyas; G Vanherle Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2007-01-30 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Peter Blanchard; Ying Wong; Abigail G Matthews; Donald Vena; Ronald G Craig; Frederick A Curro; Van P Thompson Journal: Compend Contin Educ Dent Date: 2013-04
Authors: Vilhelm G Ólafsson; André V Ritter; Edward J Swift; Lee W Boushell; Ching-Chang Ko; Gabrielle R Jackson; Sumitha N Ahmed; Terence E Donovan Journal: J Esthet Restor Dent Date: 2017-10-16 Impact factor: 2.843
Authors: Brad Strober; Analia Veitz-Keenan; Julie Ann Barna; Abigail G Matthews; Donald Vena; Ronald G Craig; Frederick A Curro; Van P Thompson Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: L G Lopes; D F G Cefaly; E B Franco; R F L Mondelli; J R P Lauris; M F L Navarro Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2003-08-12 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Gary Berkowitz; Howard Spielman; Abigail Matthews; Donald Vena; Ronald Craig; Frederick Curro; Van Thompson Journal: Compend Contin Educ Dent Date: 2013-03
Authors: Flavia Bittencourt Pazinatto; Ranulfo Gionordoli Neto; Linda Wang; José Mondelli; Rafael Francisco Lia Mondelli; Maria Fidela de Lima Navarro Journal: J Appl Oral Sci Date: 2012 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.698