Fracture resistance of class II packable composite restorations with and without flowable liners.
This study evaluated fracture resistance in class II slot packable composite restorations with and without the use of a flowable composite liner. A conventional microhybrid composite was used as a control. Thirty-six sound, caries-free human mandibulary molar teeth were used. Separate mesio-occlusal and disto-occlusal class II slot cavity preparations were made in each tooth. The prepared teeth were randomly divided into three groups of 12 teeth. Two packable composites (Surefil, Filtek P60) and one microhybrid composite (Filtek Z250) with their respective manufacturer's bonding agents were used to restore the cavities. One side of each tooth was restored with composite alone, while the other side was restored with the composite lined with that manufacturer's flowable liner. The marginal ridges of the restorations were loaded at an angle of 13.5 degrees to the long-axis of the tooth in an Instron Testing Machine until failure. The data were analysed using a one-way anova. There was no significant difference in fracture resistance between composite restorations with and without flowable liners.
Ozgünaltay
G
G
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. gozgunal@hacettepe.edu.tr
Görücü
J
J
D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; D003188:Composite Resins; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods*; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis / Q000379:methods; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D006801:Humans; D008334:Mandible; D008422:Materials Testing / Q000379:methods; D008963:Molar; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids
D003188:Composite Resins; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; C467913:Filtek Flow; C438835:Filtek P60 Composite Resin; C444701:Filtek Z250; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids; C425843:Prime and Bond NT; C403464:SureFil packable composite; C476993:dyract flow; C115612:single bond; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate