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

The aim of the present study is to compare the marginal adaptation of direct, semi-direct and indirect restorations made with nanofill and microhybrid composite materials and ormocers materials bonded with SE adhesives at the dentin and cementum. 120 standardized class II cavities were prepared  (40 for each techniques- RD, RSD, RI) with the gingival margin over and below to the cementum-enamel junction. The teeth (n= 20) were restored using one of three adhesive systems (OptiBond XTR, G-Premio Bond bottle refill, Futurabond U) with incrementally placed composite restorations and ormocers. After applying the various restorations, the teeth were prepared for SEM analysis to check the marginal adaptation by the presence of continuous margins or gaps. Comparative analysis of treatment methods and materials used was performed by statistical analysis of Chi-square test data, the statistical significance was p [0.05 and Fishers Exact Test for validation of results. It was found that among the three materials used for RD, RSD, RI both at the dentin and the cementum, there are no significant differences (RD d = 0.661, RSD/d = 0.755, RSD/c = 0.942; RI/d = 0.739; RI/c = 0.985). Comparison between the presence of continuous margins/gaps subgingivally and supragingivally at the three types of restorations shows that there  are significant differences between the marginal adaptation at the cementum and dentin to all the restoration techniques used (p [0.05). Direct and indirect restorations with nanocomposites and ormocers bonded with 1-step SE adhesive are the best solutions for restoring the posterior teeth.

In vitro Comparative Study on the Marginal Adaptation of Direct, Semi-direct and Indirect Composite Resins Restorations to Dentine and Dental Cementum