This study compared the adhesion of three different composite restoration resins. For this investigation, 45 extracted lower wisdom molars were selected and 45 Class I cavities were prepared by the same operator, and were randomly divided into three groups of 15 samples each. GROUP A: the molars of this group were filled with Surefil and the adhesive used was Prime & Bond NT. GROUP B: the molars of this group were filled with Prodigy Condensable and the adhesive used was Optibond Solo. GROUP C: for the molars of this group, Enamel Plus was used as composite and Prime & Bond NT was used as adhesive. As a negative control, twenty teeth were used without Class I preparations. Teeth were embedded in cold-cure acrylic resin and sectioned longitudinally. Dye penetration at the enamel and dentin margins were scored at 30 x magnification. Evaluations were rated from 0 to 3 (0 = no leakage; 1 = dye penetration up to one-half of the preparation depth; 2 = dye penetration more than one-half of preparation depth, but less than the axial wall; 3 = dye penetration along the axial wall). All the samples were analyzed with SEM at the following magnifications: 80 x (I micrograph), 220 and 740 x (II micrograph), 1200 x and 4200 x (III micrograph). The samples of Groups B and C showed no dye penetration. The samples of Group A showed either a level 2 or a level 3 dye penetration.
|Titolo:||A comparison of the adhesion of three restorative materials|
|Data di pubblicazione:||2002|
|Appare nelle tipologie:||1.1 Articolo in rivista|