title: Marginal adaptation of a new compomer under different conditioning methods.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This in vitro study evaluated the marginal adaptation of compomer restorations placed using three different conditioning protocols.
  
  
  METHODS
  Thirty extracted caries-free molars with 3mm diameter cylindrical cavity preparations were divided randomly into three groups based upon the conditioning treatment used: (I) 36% phosphoric acid; (II) non-rinse conditioner (NRC, Dentsply DeTrey); and (III) no conditioning. Cavities were restored with Dyract AP using Prime&Bond NT (Dentsply DeTrey) as an adhesive. Silicone impressions of the briefly etched enamel surfaces were taken after finishing the restorations. Each sample was then longitudinally sectioned and impressions were taken. Epoxy resin replicas were prepared for SEM analysis. Qualitative and quantitative assessment were performed separately for the enamel- and dentine-restorative interface.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Enamel fractures and open margins along the enamel-restorative margin were observed in some specimens in each group. No statistically significant difference was found in the percentage of gaps/cohesive failures between specimens prepared using different conditioning methods. For the dentine-restorative interface, uniform hybrid layers and long resin tags were often observed in Groups I and II. The hybrid layer in Group III was irregular and discontinuous along the interface. A significant difference (p<0.01) in the proportion of marginal gap was found between Group I (2%) and Group III (30%).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Pre-treating the cavity with 36% phosphoric acid significantly improved the adaptation of the compomer and adhesive to dentine compared with no etching. The marginal quality at the enamel-compomer interface was not affected by the conditioning method used.
authors.affiliation: Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, 34 Hospital Road, SAR, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China.
authors.forename: Y
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Luo
authors.forename: F R
authors.initials: FR
authors.lastname: Tay
authors.forename: E C
authors.initials: EC
authors.lastname: Lo
authors.forename: S H
authors.initials: SH
authors.lastname: Wei
mesh_terms: D000134:Acid Etching, Dental / Q000379:methods*; D000269:Adhesives / Q000737:chemistry; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate / Q000737:chemistry; D020770:Compomers / Q000737:chemistry*; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D001840:Dental Bonding; D003737:Dental Cavity Preparation; D003743:Dental Enamel / Q000293:injuries / Q000648:ultrastructure; D018772:Dental Marginal Adaptation; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent; D003804:Dentin / Q000648:ultrastructure; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents / Q000737:chemistry; D006801:Humans; D008689:Methacrylates / Q000737:chemistry; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D008963:Molar; D010756:Phosphoric Acids / Q000008:administration & dosage; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids / Q000737:chemistry; D016628:Replica Techniques; D017640:Silicates / Q000737:chemistry; D013499:Surface Properties; D014082:Tooth Fractures / Q000473:pathology
chemical_list: D000269:Adhesives; D020770:Compomers; D003188:Composite Resins; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; C088486:Dyract; D008689:Methacrylates; D010756:Phosphoric Acids; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids; C103500:Prime & Bond; D017640:Silicates; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate