Poster presented at the CED-IADR/NOF Oral Health Research Congress (2017 Continental European and Scandinavian Divisions Meeting). September 21-23, 2017. Vienna, AustriaN/

Azul, A. C.

Cruz, J. Nunes da

Moura, P.

Polido, M.

Journal of Dental Research

English

Repositório Comum

Inlay Adhesion Protocol Indirect Restorative Protocols Direct Restorative ProtocolsInlay Prep: Sand blasting (10 s) Ortophosphoric acid 37,5%, (1min) (Fig. 1-A) Ultrasonic cleaning (4 min) Silane coupling agent (Fig 1-B) Optibond™FL (Fig 1-C)Cavity Prep: Sand blasting (10 s) Ortophosphoric acid (30 s) Drying Optibond™FL without curingIDS Protocol2: Immediately after cavity prep:  Optibond™FL, light cured Gliceryn gel aplication Adicional curing (10s) Group C:  Optibond™FL adhesive protocol Grandio™ SO Inlay (Fig 1-D) 55º heated Z100™  composite Light curing (40s/side)  Gliceryn gel cover Light curingGroup D:   Optibond™FL adhesive protocol Grandio™ SO Inlay (Fig 1-D) Bifix™ QM resin cement Light curing (40s/side)  Gliceryn gel cover Light curingGroup A:  Optibond™FL adhesive protocol  3M Filtek Z250™  2mm-increment direct placementGroup B:  Optibond™FL adhesive protocol  VOCO X-Tra Fil™  4mm Bulk-Fill direct placement0294Immediate Microleakage in Direct and Indirect Restorative ProceduresJ Nunes da Cruz2, AC Azul1,2, P Moura1,2, M Polido1,2OBJECTIVE The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the immediate microleakage in enamel and dentin margins, associated with polymerization shrinkage of resin-composite restorative materials, in both direct and indirect restoration of class II preparations.MATERIALS & METHODSStandardized class II cavities with ENAMEL AND DENTIN margins were made in proximal surfaces of human molars. Teeth were randomly divided into four study-groups and either restored with a DIRECT or INDIRECT protocol1 (Table 1).RESULTSGroup Restorative Procedure MaterialA Microhybrid composite direct restoration Filtek™ Z250B Bulk Fill direct restoration VOCO® X-Tra FilC Inlay luted with 55ºC heated compositeVOCO® Grandio™ SOFiltek™ Z100D Inlay luted with dual-cure resin cement VOCO® Grandio™ SOVOCO® Bifix™ QMAll the groups were affected by microleakage and immediate gap formation. It is predictable that polymerization shrinkage may produce immediate gap formation and micro leakage to some extent, reducing the quality and long-term success of the restorative treatment. Nonetheless, no statistical differences were found.  25%50%75%100%Direct Indirect2,5%7,5%97,5%92,5%25%50%75%100%Direct Indirect10%17,5% 12,5%17,5%77,5%65%Table 1: Materials used in each restorative procedureFigure 2: Leakage percentage in direct and indirect procedures in enamel marginsFigure 3: Leakage percentage in direct and indirect procedures in dentin margins10%20%30%40%50%Z250 X-Tra Fil Heated Z100 Bifix QM9,1%27,3%45,5%18,2%41,7%0%33,3%25% 24,6%29,8%19,3%26,3%16%32%48%64%80%Z250 X-tra Fil Heated Z100 Bifix QM25%0%0%75%25%26,3%26,3%22,4%Figure 4: Leakage percentage in enamel margins Figure 5: Leakage percentage in dentin marginsACKNOWLEDGEMENTSPROTOCOL SUMMARY Results show no statistical differences amongst leakage levels, whether in dentin or enamel margins or in direct or indirect restorative procedures. DIRECT VS INDIRECT PROCEDURES - There seems to be a tendency for less leakage in indirect procedures when compared to direct procedures in enamel margins (2,5% vs 7,5%, p = .294) (Figure 2). In dentin margins, similar results also reveal a tendency for less leakage in indirect procedures when compared to direct procedures (22,5% vs 35%) (Figure 3).All specimens were stored at a 37ºC heat chamber in a basic fucsin bath, accordingly to ISO 11405 regulation. Results were analyzed with a stereoscopic microscope and classified according to te same ISO regulation for micro leakage analysis. Protocol steps are summarized in Table 2.Figure 1:  A - Inlay surface etching; B - Silane application on inlay surface; C - Optibond FL adhesive application on inlay surface; D - Composite inlaysA B C D CONCLUSIONSThe authors gratefully acknowledge VOCO® and 3M® ESPE for supplying the materials used in this study.Visit CiiEM web page at: 1Centro de Investigação Interdisciplinar Egas Moniz, CiiEM, 2Instituto Superior de Ciências da Saúde Egas Moniz, ISCSEM, Caparica, Portugal,ENAMEL MARGINS - Enamel leakage results revealed a tendency for less leakage in Bulk Fill composite in the direct groups; composite luted inlays also seem to acquire better marginal adaptation (Fig. 4). DENTIN MARGINS - Differently from enamel, dentin margins revealed a tendency for lower scoring in micro hybrid composite when compared to Bulk-Fill composite. The indirect techniques revealed less infiltrated samples when luted with 55º heated Z100 composite (p=.166)(Fig. 5). Data were statistically analyzed by using Pearson’s Qui-square independence test and Fisher’s exact test, at a significance level of 5%. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Fruits, T. J., Knapp, J. A., & Khajotia, S. S. (2006). Microleakage in the proximal walls of direct and indirect posterior resin slot restorations. Operative Dentistry, 31(6), 719-727.  2. Magne, P., (2005). Immediate dentin sealing: a fundamental procedure for indirect bonded restorations. Journal of Esthetic Restorative Dentistry, 17:144-155Table 2: Protocol summary

Immediate microleakage in direct and indirect restorative procedures

https://comum.rcaap.pt/bitstream/10400.26/20893/1/Poster28_AAzul_IADR%202017.pdf

Immediate microleakage in direct and indirect restorative procedures

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Repositório Comum