Influence of beveling and ultrasound application on marginal adaptation of box-only class II (slot) resin composite restorations

20Citations
Citations of this article
41Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

A laboratory study was performed to assess the influence of beveling the margins of cavities and the effects on marginal adaptation of the application of ultrasound during setting and initial light curing. After minimal access cavities had been prepared with an 80 μm diamond bur, 80 box-only Class II cavities were prepared mesially and distally in 40 extracted human molars using four different oscillating diamond coated instruments: A) a U-shaped PCS insert as the non-beveled control (EMS), B) Bevelshape (Intensiv), C) SonicSys (KaVo) and D) SuperPrep (KaVo). In groups B-D, the time taken for additional bevel finishing was measured. The cavities were filled with a hybrid composite material in three increments. Ultrasound was also applied to one cavity per tooth before and during initial light curing (10 seconds). The specimens were subjected to thermomechanical stress in a computer-controlled masticator device. Marginal quality was assessed by scanning electron microscopy and the results were compared statistically. The additional time required for finishing was B > D > C (p≤0.05). In all groups, thermomechanical loading resulted in a decrease in marginal quality. Beveling resulted in higher values for "continuous" margins compared with that of the unbeveled controls. The latter showed better marginal quality at the axial walls when ultrasound was used. Beveling seems essential for good marginal adaptation but requires more preparation time. The use of ultrasonic vibrations may improve the marginal quality of unbeveled fillings and warrants further investigation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Schmidlin, P. R., Wolleb, K., Imfeld, T., Gygax, M., & Lussi, A. (2007). Influence of beveling and ultrasound application on marginal adaptation of box-only class II (slot) resin composite restorations. Operative Dentistry, 32(3), 291–297. https://doi.org/10.2341/06-84

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free