Share
تقيم التسريب الجزني لمركبات الراتنج للحشوات الخلفية سونك فل مركب مستند على السيلورين ومركب نانوفل مستند على الميتاكرليت في : دراسة مقارنة == Microleakage Evaluation of Sonicfill
Author name:
مهند احمد الحداد
Supervisor name:
حكمت عبد الرحيم الغراوي
General topic:
Dentistry
Specific topic:
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Degree:
Master
University:
Mustansiriyah University
Language:
English
University location:
Baghdad
First pages:
20T401 - p.pdf
Abstract:
Resin composites have improved greatly since their introduction and are now the materials of choice for most of the restorations. This study was conducted with aim of comparing in vitro the marginal adaptation of three different, low shrink, direct posterior composites Sonic fill™ (nanohybrid composite), Filtek™ P90 (Silorane - based composite) and Filtek™ Z350 (nanofill composite) of a standardized Class V cavity after thermoal cycling. Sixty sound, freshly extracted human premolars were prepared with standardized Class V cavities. The specimens were divided into three groups of twenty teeth each according to the material used : Group A : The teeth were restored with Sonic fill™ posterior composite unidose capsules, Group B : The teeth were restored with a silorane - based posterior composite (FiltekTM P90), Group C : The teeth were restored with nanofill methacrylate - based composite (Filtek™ Z350 XT).After specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 7 days, all specimens were subjected to thermocycling at (5° to 55 °C), then immersed in 2% methylene blue dye for 24 hours. For each group microleakage at the occlusal and gingival regions was estimated by determining dye penetration using scoring system under steromicroscope (10X). The statistical analysis of the results showed that, Filtek™ P90 silorane based composite exhibited the lowest mean of microleakage, with statistically highly significant difference (P < 0.01) when compared with Sonicfill™ composite and Filtek™ Z350 XT nanofill composite. On the other hand, the results of this study showed that Sonic fill™ composite exhibited no significant difference (P > 0.05) as compared with Filtek™ Z350 XT nanofill composite. Also, the results in this study showed that there is a highly significant difference (P < 0.01) in dye penetration between occlusal and gingival regions for each group
