Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate surface roughness and hardness of a nanofiller GIC, a resin-modified GIC, three conventional GICs, and a silver-reinforced GICMethods: For each material, 11 specimens were prepared and then stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 h. The surface roughness of 5 specimens was measured using a surface profilometer before polishing and after polishing with coarse, medium, fine, superfine aluminum oxide abrasive Sof-Lex discs respectively. The hardness of the upper surfaces of the remaining 6 specimens was measured with a Vickers microhardness measuring instrument.Results: All tested GICs showed lower surface roughness values after the polishing procedure. Surface finish of nanofiller GIC was smoother than the other tested GICs after polishing. This was followed by resin-modified GIC, Fuji II LC; then silver-reinforced GIC, Argion Molar, conventional GICs, Aqua Ionofil Plus, Fuji IX, and Ionofil Molar, respectively. The result of the hardness test indicated that the microhardness value of silver-reinforced GIC was greater than that of the other GICs. When the hardness values of all tested GICs were compared, the differences between materials (except Aqua Ionofil Plus with Ionofil Molar and Ketac N100 with Fuji II LC (P>.05)) were found statistically significant (P<.05).Conclusions: According to the results of this study, it can be concluded that the differences in the composition of GICs may affect their surface roughness and hardness. (Eur J Dent 2012;6:79-86)

Recently, new resin-based composites, called “packable” or “condensable” resin composites, are being promoted as amalgam alternatives. The purpose of this study was to evaluate leakage in Class II cavities restored with the five packable resin-based composites. On 45 freshly extracted human molars, cavities were prepared following a standardized pattern in which the Class II cavity had a length of 3.0 mm, width of 2.0 mm, and depth of 1.5 mm occlusally. The proximal box had an axial depth of 1.5 mm and a buccolingual width of 4.0 mm. The cervical margin was located 1.0 mm below the cement enamel junction (CEJ). The teeth were randomly divided into five groups of 8 each. The cavity surface was conditioned with 36% phosphoric acid, rinsed, excess water removed, and a dental bonding adhesive (Prime&Bond NT) was used for all the cavities. The teeth were then restored according to the manufacturer's instructions: Group 1, Surefil; Group 2, Solitaire; Group 3, Alert; Group 4, Filtek P60; and Group 5, Prodigy Condensable. After the restorations were completed, the specimens were finished and polished with an aluminum-oxide-coated disc, thermocycled, stained, sectioned, and viewed under a stereomicroscope for leakage at occlusal/enamel and gingival/dentin margins.All test groups showed that leakage of gingival/dentin margins were greater when compared with leakage of occlusal/enamel margins. At the occlusal/enamel margins, there were no significant differences between the materials; however, at gingival/dentin margins, Filtek P60 and Prodigy Condensable demonstrated less leakage, while Solitaire demonstrated greater leakage.Citation: Bala O, Üçtasli MB, Ünlü I. The Leakage of Class II Cavities Restored with Packable Resin-Based Composites. J Contemp Dent Pract 2003 November;(4)4:001-011.

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of different restorative techniques and materials on cuspal deflection and microleakage in MOD restorations. Eight groups were tested using incremental and bulk-fill techniques, with or without fiber reinforcement. The restorative materials included Filtek Z250 and Filtek Bulk-fill Posterior, while reinforcement materials such as Interlig glass fiber, EverX Posterior, and Surefill SDR were incorporated to assess their impact. In total, 96 freshly extracted, sound human maxillary first premolars were selected and stored in 0.1% thymol solution at 37 °C. The teeth were randomly assigned into eight groups (n = 12). Standardized MOD cavities were prepared, followed by endodontic treatment and sealing with glass ionomer cement. The groups were as follows: Group 1—Filtek Z250 applied incrementally in 2-mm layers; Group 2—U-shaped Interlig glass fiber followed by incremental Filtek Z250; Group 3—Filtek Bulk-fill Posterior using the bulk technique; Group 4—U-shaped Interlig glass fiber followed by Filtek Bulk-fill Posterior; Group 5—EverX Posterior followed by incremental Filtek Z250; Group 6—EverX Posterior followed by Filtek Bulk-fill Posterior; Group 7—Surefill SDR followed by incremental Filtek Z250; and Group 8—Surefill SDR followed by Filtek Bulk-fill Posterior. Cuspal deflection was measured using a digital micrometer with 0.05 μm precision. Microleakage was assessed using a 0.5% basic fuchsin dye solution at 37 °C for 24 h, followed by sectioning and examination under magnification. The lowest mean cuspal deflection was observed in Group 2 (15.8 μm), while the highest was in Group 5 (27.2 μm). Statistically significant differences were observed in cuspal deflection across the groups and over time (p < 0.05). Significant differences in microleakage scores were also found among the groups, indicating the impact of restorative materials and techniques on these outcomes (p < 0.05). This study demonstrated that Filtek Z250 and Filtek Bulk-fill Posterior showed different effects on cuspal deflection and microleakage. The use of glass fiber and EverX Posterior improved restoration performance by reducing polymerization effects. Surefill SDR also reduced cuspal deflection due to its low polymerization shrinkage. Clinically, selecting the appropriate restorative materials and techniques based on the extent of tooth structure loss can improve long-term outcomes.