We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

J Adhes Dent 15 (2013), No. 2     1. May 2013
J Adhes Dent 15 (2013), No. 2  (01.05.2013)

Page 115-121, doi:10.3290/j.jad.a28672, PubMed:23534015


Comparison Between Different Flow Application Techniques: SDR vs Flowable Composite
Zaruba, Markus / Wegehaupt, Florian Just / Attin, Thomas
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of layer thickness of flowable composites on the marginal adaptation of Class II fillings after thermomechanical loading (TML).
Materials and Methods: Sixty standardized Class II box cavities were prepared under simulation of intrapulpal pressure with gingival margins located 1 mm below the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) in dentin. The samples were evenly distributed into six groups (A to F). After adhesive (XPBond) application, box preparations were filled with a first increment of either a nanohybrid composite (A, D) Ceram•X mono, or with one of two flowable materials SDR (B, E) or x-Flow (C, F). The first increments were 1 (A,B,C) or 4 mm (D,E,F) thick. All cavities were finally filled incrementally with Ceram•X mono. Replicas were prepared before and after TML (1.2 x 106 cycles; 5/50°C; maximum load 49 N). Replicas were evaluated for marginal adaptation (tooth/composite) using scanning electron microscopy (200X). The percentage of continuous margins was compared between and within groups before and after TML using ANOVA and Scheffé's post-hoc tests.
Results: For group F before TML, adaptation of cervical margins located in dentin was compromised compared to the other groups (p < 0.05). After TML, at the same location, group F showed significantly worse adaptation compared with groups A to C and E (p < 0.05), but no difference to group D was found. The marginal integrity of all interfaces before and after TML was significantly worse in group F compared with all other groups (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: Different flow application techniques for Class II cavities have an influence on the marginal adaptation (before/after TML). Applying a 4-mm first increment, both Ceram•X mono and SDR showed no differences vs groups in which the first increment was 1 mm thick.

Keywords: Class II cavities, flowable composite, incremental technique, SDR, UEDMA