A comparison of the adhesion of three restorative materials

This study compared the adhesion of three different composite restoration resins. For this investigation, 45 extracted lower wisdom molars were selected and 45 Class I cavities were prepared by the same operator, and were randomly divided into three groups of 15 samples each.

the molars of this group were filled with Surefil and the adhesive used was Prime & Bond NT.

the molars of this group were filled with Prodigy Condensable and the adhesive used was Optibond Solo. GROUP C: for the molars of this group, Enamel Plus was used as composite and Prime & Bond NT was used as adhesive. As a negative control, twenty teeth were used without Class I preparations. Teeth were embedded in cold-cure acrylic resin and sectioned longitudinally. Dye penetration at the enamel and dentin margins were scored at 30 x magnification. Evaluations were rated from 0 to 3 (0 = no leakage; 1 = dye penetration up to one-half of the preparation depth; 2 = dye penetration more than one-half of preparation depth, but less than the axial wall; 3 = dye penetration along the axial wall). All the samples were analyzed with SEM at the following magnifications: 80 x (I micrograph), 220 and 740 x (II micrograph), 1200 x and 4200 x (III micrograph). The samples of Groups B and C showed no dye penetration. The samples of Group A showed either a level 2 or a level 3 dye penetration.