Impact of refrigeration of different Resin composite restorative materials on the marginal adaptation in class II restorations.

BACKGROUND

The pre-polymerization temperature of resin composite restorative materials could influence their adaptation to cavity details. As a current debate is existing about the refrigeration of resin composite restorative materials, this study was designed to assess the effect of refrigeration of 3 types of resin composite restorative materials with different matrix systems on their marginal adaptation in Class II restorations.

METHODS

Forty-two sound maxillary molars, each with two separated Class II cavities, were used in this study. The teeth were assigned into 3 main groups (n = 14) according to the restorative /adhesive system used; an Ormocer-based composite (Admira Fusion/Futurabond M+, Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany), a methacrylate modified Ormocer-based (Ceram.X SphereTEC One/Prime&Bond Universal, Dentsply Sirona GmbH Konstanz, Germany), and a methacrylate-based (Tetric N-Ceram/Tetric N-Bond Universal, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein). Each group was then divided into 2 subgroups (n = 14) according to the gingival margin location; 1 mm above and 1 mm below the cemento-enamel junction (C.E.J). Each subgroup was further divided into 2 categories (n = 7) according to the storage temperature; stored at room temperature or stored in refrigerator at 4°- 5° C. Epoxy resin replicas were observed under scanning electron microscope (SEM) to examine the marginal gaps. A gab scoring system was used to assess the marginal adaptation of each restoration by giving scores on the basis of measurements of the maximum marginal gaps. The data obtained were statistically analyzed using the Chi-square test at a significance level of p < 0.05.

RESULTS

None of the tested groups exhibited 100% gap-free margins irrespective of margin location or storage temperature. For both storage temperatures, no statistically significant difference was observed among all tested groups either with margins located above or below C.E.J (p > 0.05). As well, there was no statistically significant difference when comparing both marginal locations for each material (p > 0.05). Regarding the effect of storage temperature, statistically significant difference was only observed between the room-temperature stored groups with margins located above C.E.J and their corresponding groups stored in refrigerator (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The refrigeration of resin composite restorative materials prior to the restorative procedures revealed a deleterious effect on marginal adaptation of the restorations with margins located in enamel regardless the type of material used.