Cavity wall adaptation of resin-based composites lined with flowable composites

Denise Estafan, Ashraf Estafan, Karl F. Leinfelder

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the adhesion of a flowable resin-based composite (RBC) vs. a condensable RBC to tooth structure using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Materials and Methods: Fifteen recently extracted human teeth were prepared for Class I restorations and equally divided into three groups. Group 1 was filled with Heliomolar bonded with Syntac Single Component. Group 2 was lined with Flow-It in addition to ALERT condensable RBC bonded with Bond-1 Primer/Adhesive. Group 3 was filled with ALERT bonded with Bond-1 Primer/Adhesive. All teeth were thermocycled, sectioned and evaluated for gap formation with the SEM. Results: SEM at x15 demonstrated that restorations with the flowable RBC at the tooth/restoration interface showed no evidence of marginal gaps between the RBC material or at the underlying tooth structure. A significant difference (P< 0.05) in wall adaptation was found between Groups 2 and 3.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)192-194
Number of pages3
JournalAmerican Journal of Dentistry
Volume13
Issue number4
StatePublished - Aug 2000

Fingerprint

Composite Resins
Tooth
Electron Scanning Microscopy
Adhesives
flowable hybrid composite

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Cavity wall adaptation of resin-based composites lined with flowable composites. / Estafan, Denise; Estafan, Ashraf; Leinfelder, Karl F.

In: American Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 13, No. 4, 08.2000, p. 192-194.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Estafan, Denise ; Estafan, Ashraf ; Leinfelder, Karl F. / Cavity wall adaptation of resin-based composites lined with flowable composites. In: American Journal of Dentistry. 2000 ; Vol. 13, No. 4. pp. 192-194.
@article{800beb6ef088489ca26a08a66a26fbc2,
title = "Cavity wall adaptation of resin-based composites lined with flowable composites",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare the adhesion of a flowable resin-based composite (RBC) vs. a condensable RBC to tooth structure using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Materials and Methods: Fifteen recently extracted human teeth were prepared for Class I restorations and equally divided into three groups. Group 1 was filled with Heliomolar bonded with Syntac Single Component. Group 2 was lined with Flow-It in addition to ALERT condensable RBC bonded with Bond-1 Primer/Adhesive. Group 3 was filled with ALERT bonded with Bond-1 Primer/Adhesive. All teeth were thermocycled, sectioned and evaluated for gap formation with the SEM. Results: SEM at x15 demonstrated that restorations with the flowable RBC at the tooth/restoration interface showed no evidence of marginal gaps between the RBC material or at the underlying tooth structure. A significant difference (P< 0.05) in wall adaptation was found between Groups 2 and 3.",
author = "Denise Estafan and Ashraf Estafan and Leinfelder, {Karl F.}",
year = "2000",
month = "8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "192--194",
journal = "American Journal of Dentistry",
issn = "0894-8275",
publisher = "Mosher and Linder, Inc",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cavity wall adaptation of resin-based composites lined with flowable composites

AU - Estafan, Denise

AU - Estafan, Ashraf

AU - Leinfelder, Karl F.

PY - 2000/8

Y1 - 2000/8

N2 - Purpose: To compare the adhesion of a flowable resin-based composite (RBC) vs. a condensable RBC to tooth structure using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Materials and Methods: Fifteen recently extracted human teeth were prepared for Class I restorations and equally divided into three groups. Group 1 was filled with Heliomolar bonded with Syntac Single Component. Group 2 was lined with Flow-It in addition to ALERT condensable RBC bonded with Bond-1 Primer/Adhesive. Group 3 was filled with ALERT bonded with Bond-1 Primer/Adhesive. All teeth were thermocycled, sectioned and evaluated for gap formation with the SEM. Results: SEM at x15 demonstrated that restorations with the flowable RBC at the tooth/restoration interface showed no evidence of marginal gaps between the RBC material or at the underlying tooth structure. A significant difference (P< 0.05) in wall adaptation was found between Groups 2 and 3.

AB - Purpose: To compare the adhesion of a flowable resin-based composite (RBC) vs. a condensable RBC to tooth structure using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Materials and Methods: Fifteen recently extracted human teeth were prepared for Class I restorations and equally divided into three groups. Group 1 was filled with Heliomolar bonded with Syntac Single Component. Group 2 was lined with Flow-It in addition to ALERT condensable RBC bonded with Bond-1 Primer/Adhesive. Group 3 was filled with ALERT bonded with Bond-1 Primer/Adhesive. All teeth were thermocycled, sectioned and evaluated for gap formation with the SEM. Results: SEM at x15 demonstrated that restorations with the flowable RBC at the tooth/restoration interface showed no evidence of marginal gaps between the RBC material or at the underlying tooth structure. A significant difference (P< 0.05) in wall adaptation was found between Groups 2 and 3.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034252969&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034252969&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 11763929

AN - SCOPUS:0034252969

VL - 13

SP - 192

EP - 194

JO - American Journal of Dentistry

JF - American Journal of Dentistry

SN - 0894-8275

IS - 4

ER -