PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 5, 2026Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics1 citations

Comparative evaluation of plasticization of composite resin by preheating, sonic, and ultrasonic activation on its adaptation to the tooth surface - A FESEM study

View Full Paper
PBParul BansalAAAnkusha AroraKothiwal Dental College and Research CentreTSTanya SethBabasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University

Key Points

  • The aim is to evaluate how different plasticization techniques affect the adaptation of composite resin to tooth surfaces.
  • Prepared standardized Class I cavities on 32 extracted mandibular molars.
  • Divided samples into four groups: hand instrument, preheated resin, sonic activation, and ultrasonic activation.
  • Compact resin using a hand instrument and light-cure for 20 seconds.
  • Analyze marginal adaptation with FESEM at ×5000–×20,000 magnification.
  • Use one-way ANOVA and post hoc analysis for statistical evaluation.
  • Significant differences in marginal adaptation observed between Groups 1 (no plasticization) and all other groups.
  • Ultrasonic plasticization showed the best marginal adaptation.
  • Preheated composite followed with the next best results, while sonic activation was less favorable than preheating.
  • The hand instrument showed the least favorable results for adaptation.

Abstract

Abstract Introduction: By reducing the viscosity of composite resin, its adaptability to the tooth surface can be improved. Aim: This study aims to comparatively evaluate the efficacy of plasticization of composite resin by preheating, sonic, and ultrasonic activation on the marginal adaptation to the tooth surface. Materials and Methods: Standardized box-shaped Class I cavities (3 mm × 3 mm × 2 mm) were prepared on 32 extracted mandibular molars. Following etching and bonding, samples were divided into four groups depending on the technique used to plasticize the composite resin ( n = 8 each): Group 1 – hand instrument (no plasticization done), Group 2 – preheated composite resin, Group 3 – sonically driven plasticization, and Group 4 – ultrasonically driven plasticization. Further, composite resins were compacted using a hand instrument and light-cured for 20 s. Samples were then stored in an incubator at 37°C and 100% humidity for 24 h to allow complete polymerization. Models were split in buccolingual direction to expose the bonding interface. Marginal adaptation was analyzed using FESEM (Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope) at ×5000–×20,000. Statistical Analysis Used: The data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post hoc test. Results: Post hoc pairwise comparison of marginal adaptation revealed statistically significant differences between Group 1 – hand instrument (no plasticization) with all other groups adapted using the plasticization technique. Ultrasonic plasticization demonstrated the best marginal adaptation, followed by preheated composite, then sonic plasticization, while the hand instrument placement technique showed the least favorable results. Conclusion: Plasticization of composite resin enhances the marginal adaptation to the tooth surface and produces gap-free margins.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Bansal et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/698433d8f1d9ada3c1fb145fhttps://doi.org/10.4103/jcde.jcde_1001_25
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper