You are here

Home » Content

KLAS ı ı KOMPOZıT RESTORASYONLARıN APROKSIMAL V E PULPAL YÜZEYLERININ MIKROSERTLIĞININ İN VİTRO OLARAK İNCELENMESI

MICROHARDNESS OF T H E APPROXIMAL AND PULPAL SURFACES IN CLASS ı ı COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS:AN IN VITRO STUDY

Journal Name:

  • İstanbul Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2008

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The aim of this in vitro study was to examine the surface microhardness of composite resin materials when placed in class II cavities using two different matrix systems (Quickmat, Polydentia and Lucifix, HaweNeos). A hybrid composite (Tetric EvoCeram-Ivoclar Vivadent), two nanohybrid composites (Grandio-Voco, Synergy D6-Coltene/Whaledent) and a nanofil composite (Filtek Supreme X T - 3M Espe) were placed in the silicon dublicates of class II cavities which were primarly prepared in plastic teeth without levels (4x4x4) mm (n=160). The cavity was prepared in plastic teeth (4mm bucco-lingual x 4 mm depth x 3mm mesio-distal) ( KaVo,EWL model). Cavosurface margins were not beveled. The impressions of the tooth with the cavity preparation were taken using polyvinyl siloxan(Speedy/PuttyLigth-Coltene). A silicon material (AffinisPrecious-Coltene) was injected in the impressions and a silicon mold of the teeth and the cavity were obtained. The prepared silicon teeth were mounted in plastic jaw (KaVo,EWL model) to simulate proximal contact. Metal sectional matrix (Quickmat-Polydentia) (n=20) and clear matrix system (Lucifix-HaweNeos) (n=20) were prepared for each tooth. Wedges were used to stabilize the matrix. The cavities were restored incrementally in oblique layers with all four restorative materials. And each increment was light cured for 40 s (Celalux-Voco). The restorations were then removed from the cavities and surface hardness of the proximal and axio-pulpal surfaces were immediatly measured with Microhardness Vickers Test device (Cleme x CMT 7, Clemex Labs.). Data were statistically analyzed with one way ANOVA and Tukey's Multiple Comprassion test. No significant differences were found between metal matrix and clear matrix (p>0.05). Microhardness of axio-pulpal surfaces were found significantly lower than the proximal surfaces for each restorative materials (p<0.05). Metal or clear matrix systems both could be used in the class II cavities in regard the surface microhardness of composite resins materials.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu in vitro araştırmada, iki ayrı matriks sistemi kullanılarak hazırlanan Klas II kompozit restorasyonların aproksimal ve pulpal yüzeylerinin mikrosertlik değerleri karşılaştırılmıştır. Plastik çenelerdeki alt büyük azı dişlerine 4x4x4 mm'lik kaviteler açılıp (n=160) dişlerin silikon duplikatları hazırlanmıştır. Kavitelere Tetric EvoCeram, Grandio, Synergy D6, Filtek Supreme X T kompozit restoratif materyaller, metal matriks sistemi (Quickmat, Polydentia) ve şeffaf matriks sistemi (Lucifix, Hawe Neos) kullanılarak uygulanmıştır. Yüzeylerin mikrosertlikleri Vickers Mikrosertlik Test cihazı ile ölçülmüştür ve verilerin istatistik analizleri One Way ANOVA ve Tukey's çoklu karşılaştırma testleri kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Metal ve şeffaf matriks kullanılan gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak fark yoktur (p>0,05). Pulpal ve aproksimal yüzeyler karşılaştırıldığında ise, aproksimal yüzeyin mikrosertliğinin pulpal yüzeyden istatistiksel anlamlı olarak daha yüksek olduğu saptanmıştır (p<0,05). Klas II kompotit restorasyonların ara yüzeyleri mikrosertlik açısından değerlendirildiğinde metal veya şeffaf matriks sistemler arasında fark bulunmamıştır.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-klas-i-i-kompozit-restorasyonlarin-aproksimal-v-e-pulpal-yuzeylerinin-mikrosertliginin-vitro-olarak-incelenmesi.pdf
  • 3-4
41
47
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA,
Loguerci
o AD, Demarco FF. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. J Dent 2006; 34: 427-435.
2. Wilder Jr AD, May Jr KN, Bayne SC, Taylor
DF, Leinfelder KF. Seventeen-year clinical study of ultraviolet-cured posterior composite
Class I and II restorations. J Esthet Dent 1999;
11: 135-142.
3. Mjor IA. The location of clinically diagnosed secondary caries. Quintessence Int 1998 (29):
313-317.
4. Burke FJ, Wilson NH, Cheung SW, Mjor IA. Influence of patient factors on age of restorations at failure and reasons for their placement and replacement. Journal of
Dentistry, 2001 (29): 317-324.
5. Manhart J, Chen HY, Hamm G, Hickel R.
Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 2004 (29):
481-508.
6. Wilson NH. The evaluation of materials: relationships between laboratory investigations and clinical studies. Oper Dent 1990 (15): 149¬155.
46
7. Gilmour AS, James T, Bryant S, Gardner A, Stone D, Addy LD. An in vitro study on the use of circumferential matrix bands in the placement of Class II amalgam. Br Dent J.
2008 E, 10: 1-4.
8. Liebnberg WH. The axial bevel technique: a new technique for extensive posterior resin composite restorations. Quintessence Int 2000
(31): 231-239.
9. Jernberg GR, Bakdash MB, Keenan KM. Relationship between proximaltooth open contacts and periodontal disease. J
Periondontol 1983 (53): 529-533.
10. Demarco FF, Cenci MS, Lima FG, Donassollo TA, Andre DA, Leida FL Class II composite restorations with metallic and translucent matrices: 2-year follow-up findings. J Dent.
2007 (35): 231-237.
11. Hofmann N, Hunecke A. Influence of curing methods and matrix type on the marginal seal of class II Resin-based composite restorations
in vitro. Oper. Dent., 2006 (31): 97-105.
12. Brackett MG, Contreras S, Contreras R, Brackett WW. Restoration of Proximal Contact in Direct Class II Resin Composites. Oper Dent
2006 (31): 155-156.
13. Ernst C-P, Martin M, Stuff S, Willershausen B. Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after 3 years. Clin
Oral Invest 2001 (5):148-155.
14. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Asscherickx K, Simon S, Abe Y, Lambrechts P. Do condensable composites help to achieve better proximal contacts? Dent Mater 2001 (17): 533¬541.
15. Hasler C, Zimmerli B, Lussi A. Curing Capability of Halogen and LED Light Curing Units in Deep Class II Cavities in Extracted Human Molars. Oper Dent, 2006 (31): 354¬363.
16. Hubbezoğlu İ, Bolayır G, Doğan O M, Doğan A, Özer A, Bek B. Microhardness Evaluation of Resin Composites Polymerized by Three Different Light Sources. Dent Mater J 2007 (26): 845-853.
17. Rode KM, de Freitas PM, Lloret PR, Powel LG, Turbino ML. Micro-hardness evaluation of a micro-hybrid composite resin light cured with halogen light, light-emitting diode and argon
ion laser. Lasers Med Sci 2007(5) DOI
10.1007/s10103-007-0527.
Yaman B.C., Güray Efes B., Dörter C., ErdilekD., Gömeç Y.
18. de Jong LC, Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JJ, Wolke JG, Geitenbeek B. The
effectiveness of different polymerization protocols for class II composite resin restorations. J Dent 2007 (35): 513-520.
19.
Deliktaş D, Ulusoy N. Farklı ışık cihazlarının hibrit ve nanohibrit kompozit rezinlerin yüzey sertliğine etkisi. A.Ü. Diş Hek. Fak. Derg.
2006: (33) 1-10.
20.
Sonugelen M, Artunç C, Güngör MA. Farklı yöntemlerle polimerize edilen estetik restoratif materyallerde aşınma ve sertliğin incelenmesi. E.Ü. Diş Hek Fak Derg 2000 (21): 1-10.
21. O'Brien WJ. Dental materials and their selection. 2nd Ed. Chicago: Quintessence Pub
Co, 1997; 18-114.
22. Ferracane JL, Berge HX, Condon JR. In vitro aging of dental composites in water-effect of degree of conversion, filler volume and filler/matrix coupling. J Biomed Mater Res 1998 (42): 465-472.
23.
Saygılı G, Şahmalı S, Demirel F. Changes in the mechanical properties of tooth-colored direct restorative materials in relation to time.
Polym Adv Technol 2003 (14): 616-622.
24. Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G. Composite resins in the 21st century. Quintessence Int 1993 (24): 641-657.
25. Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Chen HY, Hickel R. Mechanical properties of new composite restorative materials. J Biomed Mater Res
(Appl. Biomater) 2000 (53): 353-361.
26. Bouschlicher MR, Rueggeberg FA, Wilson BM. Correlation of bottom-to-top surface microhardness and conversion ratios for a variety of resin composite compositions. Oper
Dent 2004 (29): 698-704.
27.
Ulusoy N, Gökay O, Müjdeci A. Farklı kalınlıklarda uygulanan yeni geliştirilmiş üç kompozitin yüzey sertliği. A Ü Diş Hek Fak
Derg 2000 (27): 29-35.
28.
Yap AUJ, Tan SHL, Wee SSC, Lee CW. Chemical degradation of dental composites. J
Oral Rehabil 2001 (28): 1015-1021.
29.
Gökay N, Türkün LŞ. Farklı kompozit rezin materyallerin aşınma ve sertlik özelliklerinin karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi. A Ü Diş
Hek Fak Derg 2002; 28: 263-270.
30. Say EC, Civelek A, Nobecourt A, Ersoy M, Güleryüz C. Wear and microhardness of
Klas II Kompozit
Restorasyonları n Aproksimal ve Pulpal Yüzeylerinin Mikrosertliğinin in Vitro Olarak incelenmesi
47
different resin composite materials Oper Dent
2003 (28): 628-634.
31. Knobloch LA, Kerby RE, Clelland N, Lee J. Hardness and degree of conversion of posterior packable composites. Oper Dent 2004 (29):
642-649.
32. Sharkey S, Ray N, Burke F, Ziada H, Hannigan A. Surface hardness of light activated resin
composites cured by two different visible light sources: an in vitro study. Quintessence Int 2001 (32): 401-406.
33. Schulze KA, Marshall SJ, Gansky SA,
Marshall GW. Color stability and hardness in dental composites after accelerated aging. Dent
Mater 2003 (19): 612-619.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com