Dental Journal of Advance Studies

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  12 (2024)
Volume  11 (2023)
Volume  10 (2022)
Volume  9 (2021)
Volume  8 (2020)
Volume  7 (2019)
Volume  6 (2018)
Volume  5 (2017)
Volume  4 (2016)
Volume  3 (2015)
Volume  2 (2014)
Volume  1 (2013)
Related articles

VOLUME 1 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2013 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Microleakage Evaluation of Nano Ceramics and Nano Composite Resins Using Self Etch Adhesive in Class V Cavities Using Single Increment Technique

S. Vijay Singh, Saurabh Gupta, Pragya Jain, Vaibhav Munjal

Keywords : Ceramics, Composite resins, Permanent dental restoration

Citation Information : Singh SV, Gupta S, Jain P, Munjal V. Microleakage Evaluation of Nano Ceramics and Nano Composite Resins Using Self Etch Adhesive in Class V Cavities Using Single Increment Technique. 2013; 1 (2):106-111.

DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1671963

License: NA

Published Online: 08-05-2023

Copyright Statement:  NA


Abstract

Micro leakage plays an important role in the success of composite restoration, this have led to researcher to find newer composite restorative material with present study it was observed that Self-etch adhesive systems and single increment technique are advantageous in that it reduces the application time and technique related sensitivity.

PDF Share
  1. Microleakage. A review Journal of Dentistry 1976;4:199-205.
  2. Cervical Microleakage in MOD Restorations: In Vitro Comparison of Indirect and Direct Composite Operative Dentistry 2006;31(6):682-687.
  3. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. Journal of Dental Research 1955;(34):849-53.
  4. 3m.com.
  5. dentsply.es/…/ceramX/scientific%20compendium%20ceramv.pdf
  6. Effect of composite type, light intensity, configuration factor and laser polymerization on poly-merization contraction forces. American Journal of Dentistry 1997;10(2):88–96.
  7. Influence of light intensity on polymerization shrinkage and integrity of restoration-cavity interface. European Journal of Oral Sciences 1995;103(5):322-6.
  8. The competition between the composite-dentin bond strength and the polymerization contraction stress. Journal of Dental Research 1984;63:1396–9.
  9. Restorative Dental Materials St. Louis CV Mosby 1989; 8th ed:262.
  10. Effects of 15 vs 60 second enamel conditioning on adhesion and morphology. Operative Dentistry 1986;11:111-116.
  11. Microleakage at the cervical margin of composite Class II cavities with different restorative techniques. Operative Dentistry 2001;26:60–69.
  12. Influence of different restorative techniques on microleakage in Class II cavities with gingival wall in cementum. Operative Dentistry 2001;26:253–259.
  13. Microleakage in Class II composite resin restorations. Operative Dentistry 1995; 20:100–105.
  14. Resistance of cementum in Class II and V cavities to penetration by an adhesive system. Dental Materials 1997;13:157–162.
  15. Influence of tissue characteristics at margins on leakage of Class II indirect porcelain restorations. American Journal of Dentistry 1999;12:134–142.
  16. Microleakage of four Class II resin composite insertion techniques at intraoral temperature Quintessence International 1997;28: 135–144.
  17. Microleakage of Class II packable resin composites lined with flowables: An in vitro study. Operative Dentistry 2002;27:600–605.
  18. Quality and durability of marginal adaptation in bonded composite restorations. Dental Materials 1991;7(2):107–13
  19. Does an incremental filling technique reduce polymerization shrinkage stresses? Journal of Dental Research 1996;75:871–8
  20. Polymerization depths of contemporary light curing units using microhardness. Journal of Esthetic Dentistry 2000;12: 340–9.
  21. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching systems, I: depth of penetration beyond smear layers. Dental Materials 2001;17(4):296–308.
  22. Bonding characteristics of self-etching adhesives to intact versus prepared enamel. Journal of Esthetic Restorative Dentistry 2003;15(1):32–41.
  23. gcasia.info/KUL_science_behind_master_BvM_to_160606.pdf
  24. Monomer solvent phase-separation in one-step self-etch adhesives. Journal of Dental Research 2005;84:183-188.
  25. Pulse activation: reducing resin-based composite contraction stresses at the cavosurface margins. American Journal of Dentistry 1999;12(3):107–12.
  26. Clinical experience with PYRAMID stratified aggregate restorative and the VIP unit Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry 1999; 20(supplement 25): S67–S72.
  27. Controlling and understanding the polymerization shrinkage-induced stresses in light-cured composites. Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry 1999; 20(supplement 25): S34–S41.
  28. Enamel damages caused by contracting restorative resins. Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research 1975;83(2):120–2.
  29. The effects of various clinical factors on marginal enamel micro-cracks produced around composite restoration Dental Materials Journal 1992;11(1):26–37.
  30. Relationship between bond strength and microleakage measured in the same Class I restorations. Dental Materials 1992;8(1):37–41.
  31. Location and magnitude of polymerisation shrinkage induced stress in composite by the finite elemental methods (abstract 3544) Journal of Dental Research 1999;78:548.
  32. Environmental SEM observation on resin tooth interface using slow-start curing method (abstract 38) Journal of Dental Research 2000; 79:148.
  33. The effect of additional enamel etching and flowable composite to the interfacial integrity of Class II adhesive composite restorations Operative Dentistry 2001; 26(1): 70–5.
  34. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. Journal of Dental Research 1987;66:1636–9.
  35. Pulse activation reduces stresses and improves margin quality. American Association for Dental Research abstract 2003;1274.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.