Sök artiklar i SveMed+

Tidskrift

Sammanfattning

AIM – The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the marginal gap formation of a packable regular resin composite (Filtek Supreme XTE) and two flowable bulk fill resin composites (Filtek Bulk Fill and SDR) along the approximal margins of Class II restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS – In each of 39 extracted human molars (n = 13 per resin composite), mesial and distal Class II cavities were prepared, placing the gingival margins below the cemento-enamel junction. The cavities were restored with the adhesive system OptiBond FL and one of the three resin composites. After restoration, each molar was cut in half in the oro-vestibular direction between the two restorations, resulting in two specimens per molar. Polyvinylsiloxane impressions were taken and baseline replicas were produced. The specimens were then divided into two groups: At the beginning of each month during six months’ tap water storage (37°C), one specimen per molar was subjected to toothbrushing, whereas the other was subjected to thermocycling. After artificial ageing, final replicas were produced. Baseline and final replicas were examined under the scanning electron microscope (SEM), and the SEM micrographs were used to determine the percentage of marginal gap formation in enamel or dentin. Paramarginal gaps were registered. The percentages of marginal gap formation were statistically analyzed with a nonparametric analysis of variance followed by Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests and Wilcoxon’s signed rank tests, and all P-values were corrected with the BonferroniHolm adjustment for multiple testing (significance level: ɑ = 0.05). Paramarginal gaps were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS – In enamel, significantly lower marginal gap formation was found for Filtek Supreme XTE compared to Filtek Bulk Fill (P = 0.0052) and SDR (P = 0.0289), with no significant difference between Filtek Bulk Fill and SDR (P = 0.4072). In dentin, significantly lower marginal gap formation was found for SDR compared to Filtek Supreme XTE (P < 0.0001) and Filtek Bulk Fill (P = 0.0015), with no significant difference between Filtek Supreme XTE and Filtek Bulk Fill (P = 0.4919). Marginal gap formation in dentin was significantly lower than in enamel (P < 0.0001). The percentage of restorations with paramarginal gaps varied between 0% and 85%, and for all three resin composites the percentages were markedly higher after artificial ageing. CONCLUSIONS – The results from this study suggest that in terms of marginal gap formation in enamel, packable resin composites may be superior to flowable bulk fill resin composites, while in dentin some flowable bulk fill resin composites may be superior to packable ones.

MeSH