RESUMO
BACKGROUND: This study compared the quality of marginal sealing in the gingival wall of class II preparations of two low-shirinkage resins of the bulk fill type with a conventional resin isolated or associated with a glass ionomer cement (GIC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: 40 human molars were divided into 4 groups and 80 occlusal-mesial and occlusal-distal restorations were performed with the following materials: SureFil SDR flow, Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior, Z250 resins and Riva Light Cure GIC. 40 restorations were evaluated in Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) with Elemental Microanalysis Spectrometry (EDS) initially and the remainder after a period of 6 months of aging in a 37 ± 5°C oven. An average of the silver penetration at each restoration was obtained in the two evaluations and the results were statistically analyzed in a descriptive and inferential way, through the paired t-Student and one-way ANOVA F-test. RESULTS: There were no significant statistical differences between the materials with respect to silver nanoinfiltration, except for the Bulk Fill Posterior/3M ESPE resin compared to the GIC and conventional resin in the final evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The low shrinkage resins showed a similar behavior in relation to the marginal sealing quality observed in the GIC or composite resin with the incremental technique, also presenting the advantage of simplicity in the technique of confection of the restorations and reduction of the time of work. Key words:Resin composites, Bulk fill, dental restorations, marginal quality, adhesion.
RESUMO
Objective: To evaluate the post operative sensitivity in posterior restorations with different resin composites and adhesive systems as well as the influence of the depth and extent of the dental cavity. Material and Methods: A double-blind clinical trial was carried out with 80 class I restorations of 16 patients. The participants were divided into 4 groups according to the adhesive system + composite: F + P (Filtek P90™ + P90™); R + S (Rok™ + Stae™); P + A (P60™ + Adper SE PLUS™); E + X (Evolux™ + XPBond™ Adhesive). After 7, 15 and 30 days, the presence of postoperative sensitivity was evaluated and classified according to type and intensity. The data were submitted to Pearson'schi-square test, Fisher's exact teste, Student'st-test and ANOVA. A significance level of 5%was used for all tests. Results: The presence of post operative sensitivity was approximately 6% of the total sample. The sensitivity decreased with the evaluation time, with the smallest reduction occurring from the 7-day evaluation compared to the other evaluations. Conclusion: There was found no evidence of influence of the resin composite and adhesive type, depth and extension of the cavities for the presence of postoperative sensitivity. (AU)
Objetivo: Avaliar a prevalência da sensibilidade pós-operatória em dentes posteriores restaurados com diferentes resinas compostas e sistemas adesivos em relação a profundidade e extensão da cavidade dental. Material e Métodos: Estudo clínico duplo-cego foi realizado com 80 restaurações classe I em 16 pacientes. Os pacientes foram divididos em 04 grupos de acordo com compósito restaurador e sistema adesivo: F + P (Filtek P90™ + P90™); R + S (Rok™ + Stae™); P + A (P60™ + Adper SEPLUS™); E + X (Evolux™ + XPBond™ Adhesive). Após 7, 15 e 30 dias, a presença de sensibilidade pós-operatória foi avaliada e classificada quanto ao tipo e intensidade. Os dados foram analisados estatisticamente mediante os testes estatísticos qui-quadrado de Pearson, exato de Fisher, t de Student e ANOVA. Um nível de significância de 5%foi utilizado para todas as analises. Resultados: A presença de sensibilidade pós-operatória foi de aproximadamente 6% na amostra. A sensibilidade reduziu com o tempo de avaliação, sendo que a menor redução ocorreu da avaliação de 7 dias para as outras avaliações e a menor de 15 para 30 dias. Conclusão: Não se evidenciou influência do tipo de compósito e adesivo, profundidade e extensão das cavidades na presença de sensibilidade pós-operatória. (AU)
