MICROLEAKAGE AND MICROSHEAR BOND STRENGTH OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF DENTAL COMPOSITE RESTORATIVE MATERIALS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was conducted to evaluate the microleakage and microshear bond strength of different types of dental composite. For microleakage test, 45 caries-free human permanent maxillary molars with no crack, decay, or structural deformities were collected. A standard Class V cavity was prepared on the buccal surface of each tooth. The cavity of each tooth was acid etched and the adhesive material was applied to the etched surface, gently dried and cured. The prepared teeth were divided randomly into three groups, (15 for each group) according to the types of composite. Group A: Tetric EvoCeram nanohybrid composite (Ivoclar vivadent Inc. USA and Canada), Group B: Tetric EvoCeram Bulk fill composite (Ivoclar vivadent Inc. USA and Canada) and Group C: Sonic Fill Bulk fill composite (Kerr Restoratives, USA). The specimens in each group were restored with the corresponding composite and cured according to manufacturer’s instructions. The specimens were submitted to thermo-cycling, covered with nail varnish, followed by immersion in dye solution. Each tooth was sectioned longitudinally using hard tissue microtome. The microleakage was measured using digital microscope at ×10 magnification. The dye penetration in the specimens was evaluated for both the occlusal and gingival surfaces based on a scoring system. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine the difference between microleakage scores in the three study groups at a 0.05 level of significance. For microshear bond strength test 30 caries-free human permanent mandibular molars with no crack, decay, or structural deformities were collected. The occlusal surface of the teeth were ground perpendicular to the long axis of each tooth to expose a flat dentin surface. A dentine slice with thickness 2 mm was sectioned perpendicular to the long axis of each tooth. The surfaces of dentin slides were acid etched and the adhesive material was applied to the etched surface, gently dried and cured. The specimens were divided into three main groups (10 for each group) according to the type of composite resins used as in microleakage test. Composite resins was placed, cured and the specimens were submitted to thermocycling before testing. The recorded values of bond strengths in (MPa) were collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s tests were used for testing the significance between the means of tested groups. The results showed that Tetric EvoCeram nanohybrid composite had the highest scores of microleakage followed by Tetric EvoCeram Bulk fill and Sonic Fill Bulk fill which showed the lowest scores. The results also showed that Sonic Fill Bulk fill composite had the highest microshear bond strength value followed by Tetric EvoCeram Bulk fill and Tetric EvoCeram nanohybrid composite which showed the lowest value.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".