The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 5 ( September, 2009 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The Effect of Various Placement Techniques on the Microhardness of Class II (Slot) Resin Composite Restorations

Horieh Moosavi, Somayye Abedini

Citation Information : Moosavi H, Abedini S. The Effect of Various Placement Techniques on the Microhardness of Class II (Slot) Resin Composite Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009; 10 (5):8-16.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-10-5-8

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-09-2009

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2009; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

To analyze the influence of various placement techniques on Vickers microhardness of Class II cavities restored using resin composite in different depths and layers.

Methods and Materials

Sixty-four standardized Class II cavities (5.0 × 3.0 × 1.5 mm3) were prepared in sound human, maxillary premolars. The cavities were divided into four experimental groups (n=16) according to the composite placement technique used: incremental technique using a Palodent matrix (IP), incremental technique using a transparent matrix (IT), centripetal technique using a Palodent matrix (CP), and the centripetal technique using a transparent matrix (CT). The cavities were restored with Single Bond, Z100 composite resin system. After 24 hours of storage in envelopes in an amber-colored box, the restorations were finished, polished, and kept for one week before conducting a hardness test. The microhardness test was carried out using a 0.5 kg load for 20 seconds at different depths and layers of proximal surfaces. Statistical analysis was done using a t-test, ANOVA, and a Tukey's test (α=0.05)

Results

In contrast, the matrix bands, the methods of composite insertion, had a significant effect on hardness. The greatest surface hardness of resin composite was related to the use of the centripetal technique and a transparent matrix (p<0.05). With regard to cavity depths, the hardness at the top surface was significantly greater, followed by the middle and bottom cavity depths. A greater hardness was obtained in the mesial-distal direction within the external layer compared with the middle and internal layers using the centripetal method (p<0.05).

Conclusion

The kind of matrix and filling technique could have a significant effect on surface microhardness. The top surface had the greatest hardness in comparison to different depths. In the centripetal technique, the external layer of the proximal wall had greater hardness than the other layers.

Clinical Significance

While the microhardness of all of the experimental placement techniques in the different depths and layers was within a clinically acceptable range, the greatest hardness was obtained using the centripetal technique with a transparent matrix, making it the technique of choice.

Citation

Moosavi H, Abedini S. The Effect of Various Placement Techniques on the Microhardness of Class II (Slot) Resin Composite Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract [Internet]. 2009 Sept; 10(5). Available from: http://www. thejcdp.com/journal/view/theeffect-of-variousplacement- techniques-on-the-microhardness-ofclass-ii.


PDF Share
  1. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater. 2007; 23:2-8.
  2. Resin composites in dentistry: the monomer systems. Eur J Oral Sci. 1997;105:97-116.
  3. Effectiveness of polymerization in composite restoratives claiming bulk placement: impact of cavity depth and exposure time. Oper Dent. 2000; 25:113-20.
  4. Comparative study of composite resin placement: centripetal buildup versus incremental technique. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent. 2001;13:243-50.
  5. In vivo and in vitro evaluation of Class II composite resin restorations with different matrix systems. J Adhes Dent. 2006; 8:127-32.
  6. Microhardness of Class II composite resin restorations with different matrices and light positions. J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 65:487-90.
  7. Influence of resin composite polymerization techniques on microleakage and microhardness. Quintessence Int. 2002; 33:685-9.
  8. Influence of placement techniques on Vickers and Knoop hardness of class II composite resin restorations. Dent Mater. 2004; 20:726-32.
  9. Microhardness and porosity of Class 2 light-cured composite restorations cured with a transparent cone attached to light-curing wand. Oper Dent. 1993; 18:103-9.
  10. Hardness and wear resistance of two resin composites cured with equivalent radiant exposure from a low irradiance LED and QTH light-curing units. Am J Dent. 2006; 19:31-6.
  11. Microhardness of different thicknesses of resin composite polymerized by conventional photocuring at various distances. Gen Dent. 2008; 56:144-8.
  12. Effect of light curing tip distance and resin shade on microhardness of a hybrid resin composite. Braz Oral Res. 2005; 19:302-6.
  13. Gingival microleakage of Class II resin composite restorations with fiber inserts. Oper Dent. 2007; 32:298-305.
  14. Evaluation of marginal microleakage in class II cavities: effect of microhybrid, flowable, and compactable resins. Quintessence Int. 2003; 34:93-8.
  15. Radiopacity and microhardness changes and effect of X-ray operating voltage in resin-based materials before and after the expiration date. Mat Res. 2004; 7:409-12.
  16. Correlation of bottom-to-top surface microhardness and conversion ratios for a variety of resin composite compositions. Oper Dent. 2004; 29:698-704.
  17. Correlation of cytotoxicity, filler loading and curing time of dental composites. Biomaterials. 1991; 12:737-40.
  18. The science of hardness and its research applications. Metals Park, OH: American Society for Metals; 1973.
  19. Use of near-IR to monitor the influence of external heating on dental composite photopolymerization. Dent Mater. 2004;20:766–77.
  20. Hardness and Young's modulus determined by nanoindentation technique of filler particles of dental restorative materials compared with human enamel. J Biomed Mater Res. 1993;27:747–55.
  21. Effect of centripetal and incremental methods in Class II composite resin restorations on gingival microleakage. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007; 8:113-20.
  22. A novel filling technique for packable composite resin in Class II restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2002;14:149-57.
  23. Influence of curing tip distance on resin composite Knoop hardness number, using three different light curing units. Oper Dent. 2003; 28:315-20.
  24. Visible-light curing units: Correlation between depth of cure and distance between exit window and resin surface. Acta Odontol Scand. 1997; 55:162-6.
  25. Soft-start polymerization: Influence on effectiveness of cure and post-gel shrinkage. Oper Dent. 2001; 26:260-6.
  26. The curing potential of light-activated composite resin luting agents. J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 65:512-8.
  27. Effect of oxygen inhibition on composite repair strength over time. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2007; 81:493-8.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.