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

Aim : This study aimed to assess the clinical performance and to evaluate in-vitro microleakage in class II in mandibular second primary molars restored with three esthetic restorative materials. Materials and Methods: In the clinical part of the study, sixty second mandibular molars indicated for class II preparation were divided into three equal groups. Molars were restored with three esthetic restorative materials according to manufacturer instructions as follows: group (1) Compomer (Dyract), group (2) Giomer (Beautifil) and group (3) Carbomer (GCP Glass Fill). Molars were evaluated clinically every 3 months for one year using modified USPHS Criteria. In the in-vitro part of the study thirty second mandibular molars were collected and divided in three equal groups. Molars were restored as in the clinical groups and sealed at root apices. Samples were subjected to thermocycling (500 cycles, 5 ̊C/ 55 ̊C) and immersed in methylene blue dye for 24 hours at 37°C. Specimens were sectioned mesio-distally and evaluated for microleakage by means of dye penetration scoring under stereomicroscope. Data were recorded and analyzed statistically.

Clinical Assessment and Microleakage Evaluation of Three Esthetic Restorative Materials in Class II in Primary Molars