الفهرس 
Composite resin:
Bulk-fill composite:Only 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 154 |  |  |
| | | from | 154 | | |
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the clinical performance of two bulk Fill composites
(Admira Fusion x-tra and Tetric N-ceram) and one incremental composite
(Gandio SO) in Class I molar cavities along one year.
Materials and methods: Twenty patients of age 20-35 years old
selected to participate according to inclusion criteria. Each patient received
at least three restorations. Restorations were randomly distributed to
eliminate variables such as tooth type and position. Patients were selected
from the clinic of Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry,
Tanta University to participate in the present study. They signed an
informed consent approved by the Ethics Committee of Faculty of Dentistry
of Tanta University. All the benefits, drawbacks, difficulties expectations
and steps of the treatment procedures were explained in details.
Each patient received three different composite resin restorations, two
bulk-fills and one incremental type; (Admira Fusion x-tra bulk-fill and
Futurabond U adhesive system), (Tetric N-ceram bulk-fill composite resin
restoration and Tetric N bond adhesive system) and (Grandio SO composite
resin and Futurabond U adhesive system).
Simple Class I molar cavity was prepared according to caries
extension; extension for prevention was disregarded for maximal substance
protection. Cavity preparation was limited to just removal of carious lesions
with the moderate cavity depth 3-4mm (cavities less than 4-5 mm will be
excluded) without preparing any undercuts (no macro mechanical means of
retention) and no bevels were prepared. All the cavities were prepared using
number #57 straight plain carbide fissure burs.