Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
To examine the bonding of flowable resin composite restorations (F-restoration) to class 1 occlusal cavities with and without cyclic load stress, compared with that of a universal resin composite restoration (U-restoration). Two flowable composites and one universal composite (control) were applied with an adhesive system to 42 standardized class 1 occlusal cavities. The restored specimens were subjected to cyclic load stress and no stress modes. The microtensile bond strength (μ-TBS) of the dentin floor was measured. The U-restoration did not show pretesting failure. The F-restorations exhibited pretesting failure, regardless of the stress mode. The μ-TBS was not significantly different among the three restorations, regardless of the stress mode. The cyclic load stress did not influence the μ-TBS of the F-restorations; however, it significantly reduced μ-TBS in the U-restoration. The bonding reliability of the F-restorations was inferior to that of the U-restoration, for both stress modes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kawai et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: