English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objectives: To evaluate the influence of various photoactivation techniques on the internal gap, Knoop-hardness, and polymerization depth of silorane- and methacrylate-based composites in Class II restorations. Methods: Preparations were made in third molars (n = 10), according to composites (Filtek P60: methacrylate; Filtek P90: silorane) and photoactivation techniques (OC: occlusal photoactivation (control); OBL: occlusal+buccal+lingual photoactivation; and BLO: buccal+lingual+occlusal photoactivation (transdental)). Composites were inserted in two increments, both individually photoactivated for 20s. After 24h, specimens were sectioned and the ratio of internal gaps to interface length (%) recorded. Hardness was tested across the transversal section of restorations (1–4 mm below the surface). Results: Silorane restorations showed significantly lower gaps compared with methacrylate, regardless of polymerization technique (P<.05). Supplementary energy dose in OBL and BLO protocols caused significant increase in gaps in silorane restorations (P<.05). For methacrylate restorations, OBL activation caused significantly higher gap formation (P<.05). Significantly lower hardness values were seen for silorane than for methacrylate composites (P<.05), regardless of depth and photoactivation. Significantly higher hardness values were seen in BLO activation for methacrylate restorations compared with control (P<.05); for silorane, no differences were observed. Significantly higher hardness values were observed at 1 and 3 mm compared to 2 and 4 mm for both composites. Conclusions: Internal gaps and hardness are affected by composite type and photoactivation. Despite the reduced values, hardness of silorane is not influenced by photoactivation or by depth. Internal gaps are dependent on the energy dose for both composites, with silorane showing lower internal gaps.

Hardness, polymerization depth, and internal adaptation of Class II silorane composite restorations as a function of polymerization protocol