These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Effect of different polymerization methods on composite microleakage.
    Author: Deliperi S, Bardwell DN, Papathanasiou A.
    Journal: Am J Dent; 2003 Sep; 16 Spec No():73A-76A. PubMed ID: 14674504.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To evaluate the microleakage of a condensable resin composite using a microhybrid flowable composite as a liner, cured with four different methods of polymerization. METHODS: 40 freshly extracted caries-free human premolars and molars were used. MO/DO Class II standardized preparations were performed with the gingival margin placed 1 mm above the CEJ. Teeth were randomly divided into four groups. Group 1 (control group): conventional mode (Elipar Highlight), Group 2: step mode (Elipar Highlight), Group 3: ramp mode (Elipar Trilight) and Group 4: pulse mode (VIP). Preparations were etched with 32% phosphoric acid (Uni-Etch) and an adhesive system (One-Step) was used according to the manufacturer's instructions. Teeth were then restored using a 1 mm layer of flowable composite (A2 AEliteflo LV) on the gingival and pulpal floor and condensable composite (Pyramid A2 Dentin and A1 Enamel) in 2 mm increments. Teeth were thermocycled x500 between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C with a dwell of 30 seconds and then placed in a 0.5% methylene blue dye solution for 24 hours at 37 degrees C. Samples were sectioned longitudinally and evaluated for microleakage at the gingival margin under a stereomicroscope at x30 magnification. Dye penetration was scored using an ordinal scoring system as 0: no penetration; 1: enamel penetration; 2: dentin penetration. RESULTS: A Mann-Whitney U Test revealed a statistically significant difference between Group 1 with Groups 2, 3 and 4 (P < 0.001). Group 1 yielded the most microleakage. No statistically significant difference was noted between Groups 2, 3 and 4.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]