الفهرس 
Review of literatureOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 125 |  |  |
| | | from | 125 | | |
Abstract
The current project was performed to evaluate the adaptation of ormocer (Admira), hybrid composite (Z 250) and packable composite (P 60) with or without flowable liner in both enamel and dentin margin before or after load cycling. This study was carried out on 240 lower molars and divided into six main groups with 40 molars in each group according to the restorative systems used. Each group was further subdivided into two subgroups according to the gingival margin location. The first subgroup the gingival margin located 1mm above the cementoenamel junction while the second the gingival margin located 1mm below the cementoenamel junction. Respectively, each subgroup was subdivided again into two halves one half before load cycling and the other half after load cycling. Clinical evaluation of the restorative materials was carried out on volunteer orthodontic patients scheduled for extraction of upper premolars in their treatment plans. The selected specimens (n=60) were divided into 6 groups according to the restorative materials used. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA (P< 0.05) to determine the effect of restorative material type, location of gingival margin (enamel or dentin), using flowable liner and finally before or after load cycling on the marginal and internal adaptation of the restored samples. Post Hoc multiple comparison test (P< 0.05) was performed to determine significant intragroup difference of gap surface area of the tested groups. The analysis showed that the ormocer restorative system has the lowest gap surface area with all the tested groups. Also, the restored sample with flowable composite or flowable ormocer as a liner showed less gap surface area than the restored samples without flowable liner. Enamel margins showed less gap surface area compared to dentin margins and there was no significant difference between the samples before or after load cycling.