• Journal of the Korean Academy of Esthetic Dentistry
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.66-74
• /
• 2018

Composite resin restoration on class II cavities is a challenging procedure since it is tough to replicate proper contact, the natural shape of the tooth, etc. Moreover, it is not familiar with the procedure and tools for this specific situation, neither. Nowadays the patients, however, request more and more composite restorations which are relatively quick and more esthetic. In this case report, the class II composite resin restoration procedure is illustrated step by step. Every step must be considered its final consequence thoroughly. In this approach, we can minimize the finishing procedure and save our effort and time.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.56-62
• /
• 2000

The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of restorative materials on the marginal leakage of wedge-shaped class V cavity. The study was performed in vitro in 25 defect-free permanent, extracted teeth. Wedge-shaped class V cavities were prepared and then the teeth were randomly selected and restored according to the following. Group A : restoration with Tetric Ceram(composite resin) Group B : restoration with Tetric flow(flowable resin) Group C : restoration with Compoglass after acid etching(compomer) Group D : restoration with Compoglass(compomer) Group E : restoration with Fuji II LC improved(resin-modified GIC) After thermocycling, the specimens were immersed in 5% basic fuchsin solution for 6 hours and sectioned longitudinally through the center of the restoration. The degree of marginal leakage was measured as the extent of dye penetration under the stereomicroscope. The data were analysed using one-way ANOVA. When significant differences found, multiple comparisons were made using Duncan's Multiple Range Test. The results were as follows: 1. The occlusal margins of all groups except for Fuji II LC improved showed lesser leakage than gingival margins and there was statistically significant difference(p<0.05). 2. At the occlusal margins, group A, B showed same marginal leakage scores, and others were decreased as group C, D, E in that order. There were statistically significant difference between group A, Band group D, E, group C and group E(p<0.05). 3. At the gingival margins, group B, C showed same marginal leakage scores, and others were decreased as group A, D, E in that order. But there was statistically significant difference between group B, C and group E(p<0.05). 4. In the Compoglass restoration, acid-etching technique was beneficial for marginal sealing ability at all of margins. But there was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05). In the restorations for wedge-shaped class V cavities, resin restoration with acid etching technique is recommended.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.162-170
• /
• 2001

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of cavity configurations on the marginal leakage of class 5 glass ionomer cement and composite resin restorations. Four types of cavities such as saucer shape. notch shape. combined shape(notch shape occlusally and saucer shape gingivally). and U shape were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 80 extracted premolars(40 cavities for each shape). Occlusal cavity margins were placed at enamel and cervical margins were placed at dentin. 10 cavities of each shape were restored with Ketac Fil as a conventional glass ionomer cement. Fuji II LC improved as a resin modified glass ionomer cement, Z 100 as a hybrid composite resin. and Tetric Flow as a flowable composite resin (40 cavities for each material). After thermocycling, teeth were immersed in 5% basic fuchsin solution for 6 hours and sectioned longitudinally in a buccolingual direction through the center of the restoration. The dye penetrations at the tooth restoration interface were examined by stereomicroscope. The Result were as follows 1. In saucer shape, notch shape and combined shape, composite resin restorations showed lesser leakage than glass ionomer restorations(p<0.05) and in U shape. Tetric Flow showed the least marginal leakage and others were decreased as Z 100. Fuji II LC improved, Ketac Fil in that order. There were statistically significant difference between Tetric Flow and Fuji II LC improved. Ketac Fil and between Z 100 and Ketac Fil(p<0.05). 2. In Ketac Fil restoration group, saucer shape showed the highest marginal leakage and U shape showed the least marginal leakage and others were decreased as notch shape, combined shape in that order. There were statistically significant difference between saucer shape and combined shape, U shape and between notch shape and U shape(p<0.05). 3. In Fuji II LC improved restoration group, U shape showed the least marginal leakage. There were statistically significant difference between U shape and other three shapes(p<0.05). 4. The cavity configuration had no significant effect on marginal leakage of composite resin restorations(p>0.05).

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.47 no.3
• /
• pp.342-347
• /
• 2009

Statement of problem: when using resin for class II restoration, micoleakage by instrumentation can be regarded as the primary negative characteristic. A review of the available literature suggests that using flowable resin as liner to decreased microleakage. Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the influence of the nanofilled flowable resin lining on marginal microleakage after load cycling in class II composite restoration fillings using nanofiller resin. Material and methods: 24 extracted premolars were prepared with class II cavity. F group was restored the nanofilled resin with the nanofilled flowable resin as liner. NF group was restored the nanofilled resin only. After restoration, an experiment was performed on 2 groups using a 300N load at 104, 105 and 106 cycles. Prior to and before each load cycling, it was gauged length on total marginal microleakage, axial marginal microleakage and buccal, gingival, lingual marginal microleakage. Data were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney test & Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: There were statistically significant differences between 2 groups and between individual groups. (P <.05) The result showed less microleakage in teeth restored by the nanofilled resin, which was lined by the nanofilled flowable resin. Conclusion: There was significant reduction in microleakage when the nanofilled flowable resin lining was placed underneath the nanofilled resin in class II composite restoration fillings.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.26 no.6
• /
• pp.492-498
• /
• 2001

The purpose of this study was to evaluate four different composite resins in vitro for microleakage in Class II box type restorations that have gingival margins apical to the cementoenamel junction. Forty caries free extracted human molars were used in this study. The Class II cavities were prepared 1.0mm below cementoenamel junction with a #701 carbide bur. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups, each group comprising 20 treated cavities according to adhesives and filling materials ; Group 1: Scotchbond Multipurpose/Z 100. Group 2: Ariston Liner/Ariston pHc, Group 3: One Step/Pyramid, Group 4: Prime & Bond NT/SureFil. To simulate the clinical situation during restoration placement, a restoration template was fabricated and composite resin was filled using a three sited light-curing incremental technique. The specimens were stored in the 100% humidity for 7 days prior to thermocycling. The specimens were immersed in 2% methylene blue dye solution for 24 hours and then embeded in transparent acrylic resin and sectioned mesiodistally with a diamond wheel saw. The degree of marginal leakage was scored under the stereomicroscope($\times$20) and the data were analyzed by Kruskal Wallis test and Mann Whitney test. (omitted)

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.47 no.1
• /
• pp.5.1-5.11
• /
• 2022

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the clinical longevity of a bulk-fill resin composite in Class II restorations for 3-year. Materials and Methods: Patient record files acquired from the 40 patients who were treated due to needed 2 similar sizes Class II composite restorations were used for this retrospective study. In the experimental cavity, the flowable resin composite SDR was inserted in the dentinal part as a 4 mm intermediate layer. A 2 mm coverage layer with a nano-hybrid resin composite (CeramX) was placed on SDR. The control restoration was performed by an incremental technique of 2 mm using the nano-hybrid resin composite. The restorations were blindly assessed by 2 calibrated examiners using modified United States Public Health Service criteria at baseline and 1, 2, and 3 years. The data were analyzed using non-parametric tests (p = 0.05). Results: Eighty Class II restorations were evaluated. After 3-years, 4 restorations (5%) failed, 1 SDR + CeramX, and 3 CeramX restorations. The annual failure rate (AFR) of the restorations was 1.7%. The SDR + CeramX group revealed an AFR of 0.8%, and the CeramX group an AFR of 2.5% (p > 0.05). Regarding anatomical form and marginal adaptation, significant alterations were observed in the CeramX group after 3-years (p < 0.05). The changes in the color match were observed in each group over time (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The use of SDR demonstrated good clinical durability in deep Class II resin composite restorations.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.48 no.1
• /
• pp.12-20
• /
• 2021

The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the survival rate by comparing Class II restoration using flowable resin composite with stainless steel crown in primary molars. Electronic medical records and radiographs of 1,504 primary molars with proximal caries of 590 patients from June 2015 to August 2019 were analyzed. With the collected data, survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. The 1-year survival rate of flowable resin composite in the primary molar was 98.5%, 3-year survival rate was 87.7%, and mean survival time was 39 months. There was no statistically significant difference between flowable resin composite and stainless steel crown (p = 0.896). Within the limits of this study, Class II restoration using flowable resin composite can be considered a promising option for the treatment of proximal caries in primary molars.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.55-72
• /
• 1993

The aim of this study was to compare the marginal leakage of class II light curing composite resin restoration according to filling methods. With using acid etching technique and dentin bonding agent, various methods were suggested to eliminate or reduce the marginal leakage. In this study, class II cavities were prepared in 100 extracted human premolars with cementum margin(1mm below the CEJ) and the teeth were randomly assigned to 5 groups of 20 teeth each. The teeth in group 1, 2, 3 and 4 were restored by direct filling methods using P-50 and Clearfil Photoposterior of 10 teeth each, but the method of insertion of the restorative materials varied with each group. And the teeth in group 5 were restored by inlay method using Kulzer Inlay and CR Inlay. Filling methods are as follows : Group 1 : The composite resin was inserted in one layer in the proximal box and one layer in the occlusal portion. Group 2 : Insertion was in two equally thick horizontal layers in the proximal box. Group 3 : Insertion was in two diagonally placed layers in the proximal box. Group 4 : The composite resin was inserted in the same way as in group 3 except that a glass ionomer liner was first placed on the axial wall and gingival floor. Group 5 : The teeth were restored by Inlay technique using dure cure resin cement. All the teeth were thermocycled, stained with 1 % methylene blue solution, sectioned mesiodistally, and scored for marginal leakage. To compare the marginal leakage, ANOVA and T-test were used in analysis. The following results were obtained : 1. In direct filling methods, there was no significant difference in marginal leakage at both occlusal and cervical margins. 2. In all groups, occlusal margin showed significantly less leakage than cervical margin. 3. In group using glass ionomer liner, there was no significant reduction of marginal leakage at the cervical margin. 4. The group restored by inlay method showed significantly less marginal leakage than groups restored by direct filling methods at both occlusal and gingival margins. 5. There was no significant difference in each group according to filling materials.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.27 no.5
• /
• pp.502-514
• /
• 2002

The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal adaptation of direct class II sandwich restoration with packable composites(P-60), resin modified glass ionomer cement(Fuji-II LC), flowable compomer(Dyract Flow), flowable composites(Filtek Flow) in comparison with total bond restorations. In addition, for sandwich restorations, influence of different sandwich techniques was also evaluated. Large butt-joint box typed class II cavites with cervical margins 1mm below the cemento-enamel junction were cut into 70 extracted human molars. The cavities(7 groups, n=10) were filled using a closed/open sandwich restoration or total bond restoration technique with materials according to the manufacturer's recommandation using the single-component bonding agent for each system. Teeth were thermocycled 500 times between 5$^{\circ}C$ and 55$^{\circ}C$ with 30-second dwell time. The teeth were then coated with nail polish 1mm short of the restoration, placed in a 2% methylene blue for 24 hours, and sectioned with diamond wheel. Sections were examined with a stereoscope to determine the extent of microleakage. Dentine /Cementum margins were analyzed for microleakage on scale of 0(no leakage) to 4(entire axial wall) and interface between materials, on scale of 0(no leakage) to 3(axial wall). Results were evaluated with Kruskal Wallis Test, corrected for ties, to determine whether there were statistically significant differences among the seven groups. Pairs of groups were analyzed using the Student-Newman-Keuls Method and Dunn s Method. The results were as follows : 1. All groups showed some micoleakage in cervical portion. But there were no microleakage in interface between materials. 2. Closed sandwich restorations with Fuji-II LC and Filtek Flow had significantly lower leakage rating than total restorations with only P-60. However, open sandwich restorations with Dyract Flow showed significantly higher (P<0.05) 3. Closed sandwich restorations had significantly lower leakage rating than total restorations. However open sandwich restoration s showed significantly higher (P<0.05). 4. Sandwich restorations with Fuji-II LC were iou$.$or leakage than only P-60. Filtek Flow, Dyract Flow. But there were no statistically differences among the materials. From the results above, it could be concluded, closed sandwich restorations was effective in reducing microleakage of class II restorations. The best results showing the least microleakage were for the closed sandwich technique with Fuji-II LC and Filtek Flow.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.16-22
• /
• 2001

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the marginal microleakage of condensable composite resin restorations according to flowable resin lining of internal cavity wall. The eighty extracted human molar teeth without caries and/or restorations are used The experimental teeth were randomly assigned into four groups of ten teeth each. Eighty caries-free extracted human molars were used in this study. The conventional class II cavities (box-shaped on mesial and distal surface, faciolingual width : 3mm, gingival wall depth : 1.5mm) were prepared 1mm below cementoenamel junction with a # 701 carbide bur. The teeth were divided into four groups, and then each group were subdivided into A & B group according to flowable resin & compomer lining ; Group 1-A : Tetric Ceram filling, Group 1-B : Tetric Flow lining and Tetric Ceram filling, Group 2-A Ariston pHc filling, Group 2-B : Tetric Flow lining and Ariston pHc filing, Group 3-A SureFil filling, Group 3-B : Dyract Flow lining and SureFil filling, Group 4-A : Pyramid filling, Group 4-B : Aeliteflo lining and Pyramid filling. To simulate as closely as possible the clinical situation during retoration placement, a "restoration template" was fabricated, and the condensable resin was filled using a three-sited light-curing incremental technique. All the materials used were applied according to the manufacturers' instructions. The specimens were stored in the 100% humidity for 7 days prior to thermocycling (100 thermal cycles of 5~55$^{\circ}C$ water with a 30-second dwell time) The specimens were immersed in 2% metyleneblue dye for 24 hours, and then embedded in transparent acrylic resin and sectioned mesiodistally with diamond wheel saw. The degree of marginal leakage was scored under stereomicroscope ($\times$20) and the data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test and Wilcoxon signed ranks test. The results were as follows : 1. In the gingival margins of all the group, microleakage of subgroup B was less than subgroup A. 2. In the group 1, 2, 4, there was significant differences between subgroup A and B (p<0.05), but in the group 3, there was not significant different between group 3-A (SureFil) and group 3-B (Dyract flow/SureFil) (p>0.05). 3. In the subgroup A and B, there was significant different between all group except group 4 of subgroup A. From the results above, it was suggested that the cavity lining of flowable resin and flowable compomer in condensable resin restoration decrease microleakage at gingival margin, and does improve their ability to seal the gingival margin of class II preparation.