EVALUATION OF MECHANICAL PROPERTIES IN EXTENSIVE CAVITIES RESTORED BY DIFFERENT RESTORATIVE TECHNIQUES
Keywords:CompositeResins, Dental RestorationFailure, MechanicalStress
INTRODUCTION: Restorativetechniquesmake a fundamental role in theclinicallongevityofrestorations, especially in extensivecompositeresincavities. OBJECTIVE: The purposeofthisstudywastoevaluatethemechanicalbehaviorofdifferentrestorativetechniques in extensivecavities. METHODS: A total of 120 bovineincisiveswereused, wherethepulpcavitywasprepared in a conicalformat, with a depthof4mm, performedwith a Maxicuttip in ordertostandardizethesamples. Theyweredividedinto 6 groups: G1: Directtechniquewithbulk fillresin 24hs; G2: Semidirecttechniqueresin Z250XT 24hs; G3: Directtechniquewith Z250XT resin 24hs; G4: Directtechniquewith bulk fillresin 6 months; G5: Semidirecttechniqueresin Z250XT 6 months; G6: Directtechniquewith Z250XT resin 24hs. The testsperformedwere: VickersMicrohardness (VM), nanoleakage (NK) andbondstrength (BS). The data wereanalyzedthroughdescriptiveandinferentialstatisticsusingOne Way ANOVA andTukey'sTwo Way ANOVA with Post Hoc. RESULTS: For BS, therewas a statisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenthedifferentrestorativetechniques (p <0.005), andtherewas no significantdifference in aging time (p> 0.005). For VM, a statisticallysignificantdifferencewasobservedbetweenthe single andconventional incremental techniques, withbetterresults for theconventionaltechnique (p <0.005). At NK, thesemidirecttechniquedidnot show concentrationofsilvercrystalsattheadhesive interface, thusdemonstratingbetterresultsthanconventionaland single filltechniques. CONCLUSION: Comparingtheconventionalrestorativetechniquewiththesemidirectrestorativetechnique, thefirstoneobtainedbetterresults in relationtomicrohardnessandthe semidireta techniqueobtainedbetterresults in thetestsofbondstrengthandnanoinfiltration.