الفهرس 
DISCUSSIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 137 |  |  |
| | | from | 137 | | |
Abstract
This study aimed to compare microleakage and resin tooth interface of the Silorane based composite to that of methacrylate based composite. Thirty teeth were included in the study. Standardized class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surface of 20 teeth. Teeth were then randomly distributed into 2 groups (group Ι and ΙΙ). Group Ι was restored with Silorane based composite (test), while group ΙΙ was restored with Methylacrylate based composite (control). Group Ι and ΙΙ were subjected to thermocycling between 5˚C and 55˚C for about 1000 cycle and silver nitrate dye penetration was evaluated under stereomicroscope. Standardized class ΙΙ cavites were prepared on the proximal surface of 10 teeth. Teeth were then randomly distributed into 2 groups (group ΙΙΙ and VΙ). Group ΙΙΙ was restored with Silorane based composite (test), while group VΙ was restored with Methylacrylate based composite (control). Following restoration group ΙΙΙ and VΙ teeth were sectioned and prepared for SEM examination.
The mean and ± SD of microleakage score varied from 2.70 ± 0.79 for Silorane based composite (test group) and 2.30 ± 0.64 for methacrylate based composite (control group). Mann Whitney test revealed significant difference between both groups P was 0.024 (P > 0.05). while no significant difference was found between gingival and occlusal margins microleakage scores in both tested groups.
SEM examination of Silorane showed that the hybrid layer was thin and non homogenous. Cylindrical resin tags with no lateral branches were evident. While SEM examination of methacrylate showed that the hybrid layer was thick and homogenous. Funnel shaped long resin tags with few lateral branches were evident.