Search

Abstract Background The pre-polymerization temperature of resin composite restorative materials could influence their adaptation to cavity details. As a current debate is existing about the refrigeration of resin composite restorative materials, this study was designed to assess the effect of refrigeration of 3 types of resin composite restorative materials with different matrix systems on their marginal adaptation in Class II restorations. Methods Forty-two sound maxillary molars, each with two separated Class II cavities, were used in this study. The teeth were assigned into 3 main groups (n = 14) according to the restorative /adhesive system used; an Ormocer-based composite (Admira Fusion/Futurabond M+, Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany), a methacrylate modified Ormocer-based (Ceram.X SphereTEC One/Prime&Bond Universal, Dentsply Sirona GmbH Konstanz, Germany), and a methacrylate-based (Tetric N-Ceram/Tetric N-Bond Universal, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein). Each group was then divided into 2 subgroups (n = 14) according to the gingival margin location; 1 mm above and 1 mm below the cemento-enamel junction (C.E.J). Each subgroup was further divided into 2 categories (n = 7) according to the storage temperature; stored at room temperature or stored in refrigerator at 4°- 5° C. Epoxy resin replicas were observed under scanning electron microscope (SEM) to examine the marginal gaps. A gab scoring system was used to assess the marginal adaptation of each restoration by giving scores on the basis of measurements of the maximum marginal gaps. The data obtained were statistically analyzed using the Chi-square test at a significance level of p 0.05). As well, there was no statistically significant difference when comparing both marginal locations for each material (p > 0.05). Regarding the effect of storage temperature, statistically significant difference was only observed between the room-temperature stored groups with margins located above C.E.J and their corresponding groups stored in refrigerator (p

Abstract To evaluate the impact of using ion-releasing liners on the 3-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations after selective caries excavation with polymer burs. 20 patients were enrolled in this trial. Each patient had two deep carious lesions, one on each side of the mouth. After selective caries removal using polymer bur (PolyBur P1, Komet, Brasseler GmbH Co. KG, Lemgo, Germany), cavities were lined with bioactive ionic resin composite (Activa Bioactive Base/Liner, Pulpdent, Watertown, MA, USA) or resin-modified glass ionomer liner (Riva Light Cure, SDI, Bayswater, Victoria, Australia). All cavities were then restored with nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Z350XT, 3M Oral Care, St. Paul, MN, USA). All the tested materials were placed according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Clinical evaluation was accomplished using World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria at baseline and after 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years. Data were analyzed using Mann–whitney U and Friedman tests (p 0.05). Resin composite restorations showed acceptable clinical performance over 3 years either lined with bioactive ionic or resin-modified glass ionomer liners after selective caries excavation preserving pulp vitality. After the 3-year follow-up period, Activa Bioactive and Riva Light Cure liners were clinically effective and they exhibited with the overlying composite restorations successful clinical performance. Trial registration number: NCT05470959. Date of registration: 22/7/2022. Retrospectively registered.