Effect of pre-heating resin composite on restoration microleakage.
Improving the adaptation of resin composites during placement is necessary to increase durability and reduce microleakage. Flowable resin liners have been introduced to improve adaptation in composite restorations. In addition, a device that lowers the viscosity of regular dental composites has been introduced (Calset, AdDent Inc, Danbury, CT, USA). This device lowers the viscosity of composites by preheating them to 54.4 degrees C, which should lead to improved adaptation. This study compared microleakage in Class II composite restorations prepared using: 1) preheated resin composite, 2) unheated composite and 3) a flowable liner followed by unheated composite. Class II cavities were prepared on the mesial and distal surfaces of extracted third molars. Ten preparations were restored with resin composite (Esthet-X, Dentsply, York, PA, USA) for each of the following four techniques: Control (Esthet-X with Prime & Bond NT, Dentsply), Flowable (f) (as Control but used Esthet-X Flow liner), Preheated (p) (as Control but with preheating composite to 54.4 degrees C) and Delay (d) (as Preheated but followed by a 15-second delay before curing). The teeth were restored, finished, stored in distilled water for 24 hours, then thermocycled between water bath temperatures of 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C with a one-minute dwell time for 1000 cycles. Tooth apices were sealed with epoxy and varnish was applied to within 1 mm of the restoration margins. The teeth were placed in 0.5% basic fuschin dye for 24 hours, rinsed, then embedded in self-curing resin. The embedded teeth were sectioned mesiodistally with a slow-speed diamond saw, providing multiple sections per restoration. Microleakage was rated by two evaluators using a 0-4 ordinal scale at the occlusal and cervical margins of each restoration and light microscopy (40x). The data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA and pairwise testing with the Sign test (alpha=0.05). No statistical differences were observed among materials at the occlusal margin. However, at the cervical margin, the preheated samples P showed statistically lower microleakage than the controls and all other treatments. The D samples showed higher microleakage than the P and F samples. Ranked sum scores for the cervical were D (4516), C (3974), F (2756) and P (1958). There was a statistically greater amount of leakage at the cervical margins compared to the occlusal p<0.05. Preheating the composite resulted in significantly less microleakage at the cervical margins compared to the flowable liner and control. Delaying light curing of the preheated composite for 15 seconds (D) was counterproductive and led to increased microleakage.
Wagner
Warren C
WC
Restorative Dentistry, University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, MI, USA. wagnerwc@udmercy.edu
Aksu
Mert N
MN
Asku
Mert N
MN
Neme
Ann-Marie L
AM
Linger
Jackson B
JB
Pink
Frank E
FE
Walker
Stephen
S
D003188:Composite Resins; D003736:Dental Cavity Lining; D003737:Dental Cavity Preparation / Q000145:classification; D003763:Dental Leakage / Q000517:prevention & control*; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods*; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis; D004548:Elasticity; D006244:Hardness; D006358:Hot Temperature; D006801:Humans; D008027:Light; D008964:Molar, Third; D044367:Phase Transition; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids; D019279:Resin Cements; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D014783:Viscosity
D003188:Composite Resins; C466112:Esthet-X; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids; C425843:Prime and Bond NT; D019279:Resin Cements