Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorBoston, Daniel
dc.creatorAbourezq, Ibraheem
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-03T15:34:02Z
dc.date.available2020-11-03T15:34:02Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.other904556317
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12613/2525
dc.description.abstractSonicFillTM is a new composite resin and delivery system designed to provide rapid filling of cavity preparations by decreasing viscosity through application of sonic energy. However, it may produce unwanted air voids in the final restoration due to the short filling time. Air voids compromise long-term performance by providing weak foci, discontinuity at cavosurface margins and at internal cavity walls, and potential crack propagation. This study assessed the locations, sizes, and numbers of voids in SonicFill restorations compared with traditional composite resin restorations in a set of extracted molars with mesio-occlusal-distal (MOD) cavity preparations. Fifty noncarious intact extracted third molars were collected randomly from a large collection of discarded anonymous tooth specimens. Standardized MOD cavity preparations were cut, and teeth were assigned randomly to one of two groups (n = 25). The first group was restored with SonicFill composite in two steps. The second group was restored with Herculite UltraTM using an multiple increment layering technique (1-2 mm per layer). Cross-sectional images of the filling were taken by digital microscope. A total of 196 voids were found in the 50 specimens: 97 in SonicFill restorations and 99 in conventional restorations. Mean number of voids in SonicFill restorations was 3.88 versus 3.96 for conventional restorations. Mean percentage of void area in SonicFill restorations was 0.588% versus 0.508% for conventional restorations. Unpaired t tests for these differences indicated no statistically significant differences (p =.931 and p =.629, respectively). One-way ANOVA tests for mean void count and mean void area percentage differences by three location zones for conventional and SonicFill restorations also indicated no significant differences among the groups. The bulk-fill SonicFill system does not result in increased or decreased numbers or ii area of voids within Class II MOD restorations compared with a conventional composite resin layering system.
dc.format.extent49 pages
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherTemple University. Libraries
dc.relation.ispartofTheses and Dissertations
dc.rightsIN COPYRIGHT- This Rights Statement can be used for an Item that is in copyright. Using this statement implies that the organization making this Item available has determined that the Item is in copyright and either is the rights-holder, has obtained permission from the rights-holder(s) to make their Work(s) available, or makes the Item available under an exception or limitation to copyright (including Fair Use) that entitles it to make the Item available.
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
dc.subjectMaterials Science
dc.subjectComposite
dc.subjectResin
dc.subjectSonicfill
dc.subjectVoids
dc.titleVOIDS IN SONIC FILLTM RESTORATIONS COMPARED TO TRADITIONAL INCREMENTALLY-FILLED COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS
dc.typeText
dc.type.genreThesis/Dissertation
dc.contributor.committeememberJefferies, Steven R.
dc.contributor.committeememberYesilsoy, Cemil
dc.contributor.committeememberArocho, Juan
dc.description.departmentOral Biology
dc.relation.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.34944/dspace/2507
dc.ada.noteFor Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation, including help with reading this content, please contact scholarshare@temple.edu
dc.description.degreeM.S.
refterms.dateFOA2020-11-03T15:34:02Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
TETDEDXAbourezq-temple-0225M-1 ...
Size:
1.164Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record