Premium
Evaluation of internal adaptation in ceramic and composite resin inlays by silicon replica technique
Author(s) -
KARAKAYA S.,
SENGUN A.,
ÖZER F.
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
journal of oral rehabilitation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.991
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1365-2842
pISSN - 0305-182X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01443.x
Subject(s) - inlay , materials science , composite number , ceramic , composite material , dentistry , medicine
summary This study was aimed at investigating the internal adaptation of a ceramic (Ceramco II) and two composite resin inlay materials (SureFil and 3M Filtek Z 250 TM ) using silicon replica technique as an indicator. Forty‐five standard mesial–occlusal–distal (MOD) cavities were prepared into brass moulds by using computer numerically controlled system. Inlays were prepared according to manufacturers’ instructions with indirect methods. Replicas of the prepared cavities and inlays were produced with a polyvinyl siloxane material (Elite H‐D). The spaces between inlays and cavities were filled by different coloured light‐body polyvinyl siloxane material. Two parallel slices (mesio‐distally) were obtained from the replicas with a sharp blade. Different coloured polyvinyl siloxane material thickness between cavity and inlay was measured at seven points (mesial, occlusal and distal). The data were evaluated with anova and Tukey's honestly significantly different (HSD) statistical tests. In the SureFil and Ceramco II groups, the sizes of the contraction gaps at mesial and distal gingival floors were greater than that of the occlusal marginal walls. In comparison of gap formation at occlusal regions, while the 3M composite group showed highest gap values (204·33 ± 75·45 μ m), the Ceramco II group revealed the lowest (141·17 ± 23·66 μ m) ( P < 0·05). At the gingival floors, gap formation of Ceramco II group was the highest (227·08 ± 51·95 μ m). Neither the 3M Filtek Z250 nor SureFil group showed any statistical difference between gap values of their self‐occlusal and gingival floors ( P > 0·05). In conclusion, our results showed that ceramic inlays did not confer any big advantage for internal adaptation over the composite inlays.