Introduction: The composite SonicFillTM (Kerr/Kavo) is indicated for posterior restorations, with a single increment up to 5 mm due to reduced polymerization shrinkage, thus reducing working time. Aim: Evaluation of m...Introduction: The composite SonicFillTM (Kerr/Kavo) is indicated for posterior restorations, with a single increment up to 5 mm due to reduced polymerization shrinkage, thus reducing working time. Aim: Evaluation of marginal microleakage with SonicFillTM. Method and Materials: There were sectioned sixty noncarious human molars in the occluso-cervical direction. Class V cavities were prepared on each tooth with gingival margin walls in a standardized way. The specimens were divided into 4 groups: group 1—restored with SonicFillTM (Kerr/Kavo), group 2—restored with FiltekTM SupremeXTE (3M ESPE), group 3—the cavities were not restored;group 4—restored with SonicFillTM (Kerr/Kavo). In groups 1, 2 and 4 the enamel was conditioned with 37% orthophosphoric acid and applied the self-etch adhesive system Clear- fillTM SE BOND (Kuraray). The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37?C for 7 days. After, the specimens, were immersed in a solution of 99mTc-Pertechnetate and the radioactivity was assessed with a gamma camera. The nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney test with Bonferroni correction at a significance level of 5% were used for the statistical analyses. Results: There are significant differences between the positive and negative control groups and between these and experimental groups (p TM and FiltekTM SupremeXTE. Conclusion: The new composite SonicFillTM and FiltekTM SupremeXTE showed no difference concerning dye penetration. The Sonic- FillTM restorative system showed no influence in concerning microleakage.展开更多
文摘Introduction: The composite SonicFillTM (Kerr/Kavo) is indicated for posterior restorations, with a single increment up to 5 mm due to reduced polymerization shrinkage, thus reducing working time. Aim: Evaluation of marginal microleakage with SonicFillTM. Method and Materials: There were sectioned sixty noncarious human molars in the occluso-cervical direction. Class V cavities were prepared on each tooth with gingival margin walls in a standardized way. The specimens were divided into 4 groups: group 1—restored with SonicFillTM (Kerr/Kavo), group 2—restored with FiltekTM SupremeXTE (3M ESPE), group 3—the cavities were not restored;group 4—restored with SonicFillTM (Kerr/Kavo). In groups 1, 2 and 4 the enamel was conditioned with 37% orthophosphoric acid and applied the self-etch adhesive system Clear- fillTM SE BOND (Kuraray). The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37?C for 7 days. After, the specimens, were immersed in a solution of 99mTc-Pertechnetate and the radioactivity was assessed with a gamma camera. The nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney test with Bonferroni correction at a significance level of 5% were used for the statistical analyses. Results: There are significant differences between the positive and negative control groups and between these and experimental groups (p TM and FiltekTM SupremeXTE. Conclusion: The new composite SonicFillTM and FiltekTM SupremeXTE showed no difference concerning dye penetration. The Sonic- FillTM restorative system showed no influence in concerning microleakage.
