Continuous-fiber preform reinforcement of dental resin composite restorations

Xu, Hockin H.K.; Schumacher, Gary E.; Eichmiller, Frederick C.; Peterson, Richard; Antonucci, Joseph M.; Mueller, H.J.

doi:10.1016/s0109-5641(02)00100-8

Cited by 62 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The null hypothesis was not rejected because there were not differences among marginal microleakage of CR with respect to restorative techniques. Although some studies used a smaller number of specimens per group (9,21) or the same amount (17,19) than the present study, our data showed high standard deviation values. It is possible that a larger sample size per group could lead to significant differences, especially in the group 3.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 66%

“…Such openings or gaps are considered deleterious since they allow the transit of fluid between the dentin-pulp complex and the oral environment (3,5,6). Thus, different restorative techniques have been proposed to improve the adaptation marginal, such as pre-cured CR spheres inserted with the composite increments (7), a thin layer of flowable resin applied at the gingival wall and a strip of fiberglass inserted with the increments of CR (8,9). The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal microleakage of CR restorations as a function of different restorative techniques.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Marginal microleakage of class II composite resin restorations due to restorative techniques

Carvalho¹,

Moreira²,

Cunha³

et al. 2010

Rev. odonto ciênc. (Online)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To evaluate the marginal microleakage of class II composite resin (CR) restorations due to restorative techniques.Methods: Forty human extracted premolars were assigned to 4 groups (n=10). Class II cavities were prepared (4-mm wide, 2-mm axially, with the gingival margin located 1 mm beyond the cementum-enamel-junction), and the restorative adhesive system Prime & Bond 2.1/TPH 3 (Dentsply) was used. CR was inserted by the oblique incremental technique (OIT) and cured in continuous exposure. The restoratives techniques were: group 1 (control): OIT; group 2: flowable resin (1 mm) applied in the gingival wall + OIT; group 3: OIT + three pre-cured spheres inserted in the first increment of CR; and, group 4: OIT + strip of fiberglass inserted in the first increment of CR. The specimens were subjected to a thermocycling regimen of 500 cycles (1 min at 5º-37º-55ºC), coated with two layers of nail varnish up to 1 mm from the restoration margins, and immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsine solution for 24 h. The extension of dye penetration at the cervical wall (µm) was evaluated using an optic microscope at x40. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) (α=0.05).Results: The microleakage values were: G1: 370 µm ± 241; G2: 398 µm ± 354; G3: 205 µm ± 119; and G4: 413 µm ± 340. No statistically significant differences were found among the restorative techniques (P=0.081). Conclusion:Marginal microleakage values were not influenced by the different restorative techniques tested.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 66%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal microleakage of class II composite resin restorations due to restorative techniques

Carvalho¹,

Moreira²,

Cunha³

et al. 2010

Rev. odonto ciênc. (Online)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The fibers also may have a strengthening effect of the composite margin, which may increase resistance to dimensional change or deformation, which occurs during thermal and mechanical loading, and, hence, improve marginal adaptation. 60 For light-polymerization of the first increment placed in the depth of the cavity, the deep slot cavity preparation configuration used in this study is challenging. The light must travel approximately 4 mm before it reaches the surface of the first composite increment.…”

Section: Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These products are meant to improve the mechanical properties of materials and provide extended applications for resin composites. [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] They have a wide range of applications, including orthodontic treatment, 31 such as splints for periodontally-involved teeth, [32][33] reinforcement for resin composites, 34 the fabrication of non-metallic endodontic posts, [35][36][37][38][39] reinforcement of denture bases [40][41][42][43][44] and reinforcement for non-metallic crowns and fixed partial dentures. [25][26][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] It has been reported that the embedding of fiber inserts into composites results in strengthening the restoration, particularly large ones, with improved fracture resistance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[25][26][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] It has been reported that the embedding of fiber inserts into composites results in strengthening the restoration, particularly large ones, with improved fracture resistance. 30 This study determined the effect of glass and polyethylene fiber inserts on reducing the gingival marginal gap in Class II resin composite restorations with gingival margins on the root surface. This was achieved through determining microleakage scores along the tooth/restoration interface when three different types of bonding agents were used.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gingival Microleakage of Class II Resin Composite Restorations with Fiber Inserts

El‐Mowafy

El-Badrawy²,

Eltanty³

et al. 2007

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fiber inserts incorporated at the gingival floor of Class II composite restorations resulted in a significant reduction of microleakage scores as compared to restorations made without inserts. This may lead to a reduced incidence of recurrent caries. SUMMARYPurpose: This investigation evaluated the effect of glass and polyethylene fiber inserts on the microleakage of Class II composite restorations with gingival margins on root surfaces. Methods: Fifty-four intact molars were sterilized with Gamma irradiation and mounted in acrylic bases. Class II slot cavities were made on both proximal sides of each tooth (3 mm wide, 1.5 mm deep) with the gingival margin on the root surface. The teeth were divided into nine groups, according to the technique of restoration and type of bonding agent. Filtek P-60 (3M/ESPE) was used to restore all cavities. Two types of fiber inserts were used: glass fiber (Ever Stick, StickTech) and polyethylene (Ribbond-THM), with three bonding agents being employed: Scotch Bond Multipurpose (3M/ESPE), Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray) and Xeno IV (Dentsply). In the experimental groups, 3 mm long fiber inserts were inserted into restorations at the gingival seat. The control groups had no fiber inserts. The restorations were made incrementally and cured with LED light (UltraLume5, Ultradent). The restored teeth were stored in water for two weeks, then thermocycled for 3,000 cycles (5°C and 55°C). The tooth surfaces were sealed with nail polish, except at the restoration margins. The teeth were immersed in 2% procion red dye solution, sectioned and dye penetration was assessed to determine the extent of microleakage

show abstract