RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of various photoactivation techniques on the internal gap, Knoop-hardness, and polymerization depth of silorane- and methacrylate-based composites in Class II restorations. METHODS: Preparations were made in third molars (n = 10), according to composites (Filtek P60: methacrylate; Filtek P90: silorane) and photoactivation techniques (OC: occlusal photoactivation (control); OBL: occlusal+buccal+lingual photoactivation; and BLO: buccal+lingual+occlusal photoactivation (transdental)). Composites were inserted in two increments, both individually photoactivated for 20s. After 24h, specimens were sectioned and the ratio of internal gaps to interface length (%) recorded. Hardness was tested across the transversal section of restorations (1-4 mm below the surface). RESULTS: Silorane restorations showed significantly lower gaps compared with methacrylate, regardless of polymerization technique (P<.05). Supplementary energy dose in OBL and BLO protocols caused significant increase in gaps in silorane restorations (P<.05). For methacrylate restorations, OBL activation caused significantly higher gap formation (P<.05). Significantly lower hardness values were seen for silorane than for methacrylate composites (P<.05), regardless of depth and photoactivation. Significantly higher hardness values were seen in BLO activation for methacrylate restorations compared with control (P<.05); for silorane, no differences were observed. Significantly higher hardness values were observed at 1 and 3 mm compared to 2 and 4 mm for both composites. CONCLUSIONS: Internal gaps and hardness are affected by composite type and photoactivation. Despite the reduced values, hardness of silorane is not influenced by photoactivation or by depth. Internal gaps are dependent on the energy dose for both composites, with silorane showing lower internal gaps.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the influence of the energy dose on the hardness, polymerization depth, and internal adaptation of silorane and methacrylate-based posterior composites in Class II restorations with different bonding approaches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Class II preparations were made on the mesial and distal surfaces of extracted third molars and randomly distributed into 6 groups (n=20), according to the restorative systems [methacrylate-based composite: Filtek P60+Adper Single Bond 2 (etch-and-rinse adhesive) - P60/SB; Filtek P60+Adper Easy One (self-etching adhesive) - P60/EO; silorane-based composite: Filtek P90+P90 System Adhesive - P90 (self-etching adhesive)] and the energy dose (20 and 40 J/cm(2)). Resin composites were applied in two increments, individually photoactivated using an LED light-curing unit. After 24 h, all restorations were mesio-distally sectioned. Hardness was evaluated along the transversal section of the fillings (1-4 mm below the restoration surface) using a load of 50 g for 5 s. In order to evaluate the internal gap formation, specimens were air dried and 1% acid red propylene glycol solution was applied to the internal margins for 20 s. Specimens were then water rinsed, air dried, and digitally image recorded. The internal gap (%) was calculated as the ratio between the stained margins and the total length of the internal margin. Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to evaluate internal gap formation, and three-way ANOVA and Tukey's test were performed to evaluate hardness/polymerization depth (α=0.05). RESULTS: Regarding the internal gap formation, a significant difference was observed among all groups (P60/EO