الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 110 |  |  |
| | | from | 110 | | |
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate and compare marginal adaptation, microleakage and internal adaptation of two esthetic restorative systems: sonicsys as semidirect esthetic restorative system and IPS Empress as indirect esthetic restorative system. Materials and Methods: A total of 52 human maxillary premolars were used and classified into two main groups: I and II of 26 teeth each. In group I: MOD cavities were prepared with sonicsys approx, tips No.2 and restored with the ready made sonicsys inlays of the corresponding size (# 2). These inlays were luted with Tetric Ceram and Tetric flow composite resins and bonded with Syntac single component in subgroup Ia (No= 13 specimen) and bonded with Exite DSC in subgroup Ib (No 13 specimen). In group II MOD cavities were prepared with diamond instrument and restored with IPS Empress inlays fabricated in dental laboratory. The IPS Empress inlays were luted with dual cure resin cement? Variolink II? and bonded with Syntac single component in subgroup ITa (No= 13 specimen) and with Exite DSC in subgroup TIb (No13 specimen). All the restored teeth then subjected taja total of six months of ?in vitro? simulated? in vivo? function by exposing the samples to thermal cycling and mechanical loading. For thermal cycling, all specimens were thermocycled between 5+2 C and 55+2 C for 300, with a dwell time of 2 minutes and 10 seconds transfer time. For mechanical loading, all specimens were subjected to 120.000 loading cycles at 100 N. all specimens were examined under a measurescope for marginal gaps at 1 Ox magnification, one sample from each subgroup was randomly selected and then photographed using scanning electronmicroscope. For microleakage evaluation, specimens were dried and sealed with 2 coats of nail varnish except for 2mm window around the cavity margins, then the specimens were immersed in 0.05% basic fuschin dye for 24 hours, after that the teeth were washed in tap water and sectioned mesiodistally with diamond disc and examined under binocular stereomicroscope for dye penetration. The Samesectioned specimens were used for internal adaptation measurements. The internal gap distance between the inlays and the restorations were measured with measurscope at three preelected locations at lOx magnification. Oneway ANOVA test followed b the Duncan?s multiple range test were used. Results: Marginal adaptation of Sonicsys inlays better than that of IPS Empress inlays. Internal adaptation of Sonicsys inlays like that of IPS Empress inlays. No significant difference between the two systems in microleakage which is acceptable.