الفهرس 
acknowledgmentOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 16 |  |  |
| | | from | 16 | | |
Abstract
This study was designed to evaluate and compare Ormocer¬-based esthetic restorative l11aterial (Definite- Degussa) with another esthetic restorative nlaterial dimethacrylate-based resin COll1posite (Filtek Z250- 3M) in different aspects (Clinically, physically and biologically).
Materials and Methods:
I- Clinical part
Fifty Class II cavities were randomly divided into two groups of 25 teeth each. Cavities were restored by Ormocer-based (Definite) or dimethacrylate-based (Filtek Z250) esthetic restorative material. Restorations were evaluated after one month and six months using USPHS rating ll1ethod.
II-Laboratorv part
Degree of Monomer Conversion:
Three 5X2 111111 samples of each material were prepared. The degree of monomer conversion was measured fron1 top and bottom surfaces at 40, 60 and 120 seconds polymerization, using Raman Spectroscopy.
Study of Effect of Different Adhesives on Enamel and Dentin Enamel
Buccal surface of ten l110lar teeth were ground to expose flat enamel surface to which the nlaterials were bonded using either self-etch adhesive