Marginal integrity of the whole restoration (enamel and dentine)
REGRESSION
Before TML, the achieved marginal integrity (% ± standard deviation SD) of each tested RBC (bulk-fill with AFCT “Power Fill” and conventional without AFCT “Prime”) with each tested light-curing mode (regular “10 s” and high-irradiance “3 s”) was as follows: Power Fill (10 s: 92.1 ± 10.2) (3 s: 90.1 ± 5.4), Prime (10 s: 90.1 ± 6.9) (3 s: 90.3 ± 7.3). The difference between “Power Fill (10 s)” vs. “Power Fill (3 s)” and “Prime (10 s)” vs. “Prime (3 s)” and between “Power Fill (10 s)” vs. “Prime (10 s)” and “Power Fill (3 s)” vs. “Prime (3 s)” was not statistically significant (After TML, the achieved marginal integrity (% ± SD) of each tested RBC with each tested light-curing mode was as follows: Power Fill (10 s: 79.7 ± 15.6) (3 s: 77.6 ± 11.3), Prime (10 s: 69.7 ± 11.1) (3 s: 75.0 ± 9.7). The difference between “Power Fill (10 s)” vs. “Prime (10 s)”, and between “Power Fill (3 s)” vs. “Prime (3 s)” was statistically significant (
Marginal integrity of the whole restoration in each group before and after TML (means: x marks, medians: horizontal lines, quartiles: boxes, interquartile range: whiskers, outliers: circles). Same capital letters indicate no statistically significant difference between different light-curing modes (high-irradiance: 3 s, regular: 10 s) within the same restorative material. Connecting lines indicate no statistically significant difference between the restorative materials within the same light-curing mode
The regression data analysing the whole restoration after TML