Article

Direct posterior composites: a practical guide.

Primary Dental Care Research Group, University of Birmingham School of Dentistry, St Chad's Queensway, Birmingham B4 6NN, UK.
Dental update 04/2009; 36(2):71-2, 74-6, 79-80 passim.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The restoration of posterior teeth with directly placed resin-bonded composite requires meticulous operative technique in order to ensure success. Case and material selection; cavity preparation; matrix selection; isolation; bonding; management of polymerization shrinkage; placement; finishing and curing of posterior composites--all present a series of challenges that dentists must master in order to ensure high-quality, long-lasting restorations. This paper describes and discusses these aspects of the provision of composites for loadbearing situations in posterior teeth. Clinical Relevance: Successful restoration of posterior teeth with composite is an essential component of contemporary dental clinical practice.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Adrian C C Shortall, Jul 02, 2015
4 Followers
 · 
3,006 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the effect of glass and polyethylene fiber inserts and flowable composite as a liner on the microleakage of Class II composite restorations with gingival margins on root surfaces. Class II slots were prepared on both the proximal sides of thirty freshly extracted mandibular molars and were divided into six groups, according to the type of fiber insert and use of flowable composite (Filtek Z350) as a liner. Filtek P-60 (3M/ESPE) posterior composite was used to restore all cavities. The specimens were thermocycled and stained with 2% Basic Fuchsin dye, and sectioned to evaluate the dye penetration under Stereomicroscope. Statistical analysis was done using Kruskalwallis test and Mann whitney U test. This study showed that, fiber insert groups, with or without flowable liner, had reduced microleakage scores as compared to the control groups. However, statistically no significant difference was found between the groups with fiber inserts. Less microleakage was seen in Group IV (With flowable liner and without Fiber inserts) as compared to Group I (Without flowable liner and Fiber inserts).
    Journal of Conservative Dentistry 04/2012; 15(2):166-9. DOI:10.4103/0972-0707.94590
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Our experiment evaluated the microleakage in resin composite restorations bonded to dental tissues with different adhesive systems. 40 class V cavities were prepared on the facial and lingual surfaces of each tooth with coronal margins in enamel and apical margins in cementum (root dentin). The teeth were restored with Z100 resin composite bonded with different adhesive systems: Scotchbond Multipurpose (SBMP), a 3-step Etch and Rinse adhesive, Adper Scotchbond 1 XT (SB1), a 2-step Etch and Rinse adhesive, AdheSE One (ADSE-1), a 1-step Self-Etch adhesive, and AdheSE (ADSE), a 2-step Self-Etch adhesive. Teeth were thermocycled and immersed in 50% silver nitrate solution. When both interfaces were considered, SBMP has exhibited significantly less microleakage than other adhesive systems (resp., for SB1, ADSE-1 and ADSE, P = 0.0007, P < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001). When enamel and dentin interfaces were evaluated separately, (1) for the Self-Etch adhesives, microleakage was found greater at enamel than at dentin interfaces (for ADSE, P = 0.024 and for ADSE-1, P < 0.0001); (2) for the Etch and Rinse adhesive systems, there was no significant difference between enamel and dentin interfaces; (3) SBMP was found significantly better than other adhesives both at enamel and dentin interfaces. In our experiment Etch and Rinse adhesives remain better than Self-Etch adhesives at enamel interface. In addition, there was no statistical difference between 1-step (ADSE-1) and 2-step (ADSE) Self-Etch adhesives.
    International Journal of Dentistry 05/2012; 2012:852841. DOI:10.1155/2012/852841