Adaptability of VisCalor versus bulk-fill composites using scanning electron microscope: an in-vitro study

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the marginal integrity of two types of bulk-fill composite resins in Class I box-shaped cavities. Materials and methods Forty extracted human sound molars were selected. The teeth were fixed with sticky wax to the base of plastic cylinder and the cylinder was filled with self-curing acrylic resin so that only root was embedded. Simple Class I box-shaped cavities were prepared using a fissure carbide bur with water spray and finished with fine-grained flame burs. The overall dimensions and depth of the cavities were standardized as follows: 4 mm length mesiodistally and 3 mm width buccolingually and up to 4 mm depth. All prepared cavities were bonded using Futurabond M+ one-step self-etch adhesive system. The teeth were randomly divided into two groups (n = 20 teeth each): group I: specimens were restored with VisCalor composite bulk-fill composite resin, which is heated before insertion using a VisCalor dispenser dental device. Group II: specimens were directly restored with X-tra fill bulk-fill composite resin without preheating. After curing, finishing and polishing were performed. Each group was subdivided into two subgroups a and b (n = 10) according to whether subjecting 500 thermocycling fluctuations or not. Each specimen was sectioned buccolingually through the center of the composite resin restoration in two halves, and then cleaned under running tap water and subjected to thorough ultrasonic cleaning to get rid of both soft and hard surface deposits. All sectional samples were fixated in cylindrical carriers, and a thin layer of gold was applied to the surfaces. The marginal adaptation of composite restorations and ultramorphology of adhesive bonds were analyzed at ×50, ×1000 magnification, with a scanning electron microscope. ×50 magnification was utilized to measure the length of margins free gap in enamel and dentin by Autodesk Auto CAD program and expressed in mm/percent. All data of measurements of the length of nongaped margins in enamel and dentin are collected, tabulated, and statistically analyzed. Results Group Ia (VisCalor bulk-fill not thermocycled), recorded the highest mean value of marginal free-gap with 10.26 ± 0.27 mm (93.31%), while group IIb (X-tra-fill bulk-fill thermocycled) recorded the lowest mean value in 7.90 ± 0.26 mm (73.04%) and the difference was statistically highly significant (P = 0.000). In general, group I recorded higher mean values of marginal free gap and adaptation in mm/percent than group II, and the difference was statistically highly significant at P value of 0.000 (9.86 ± 0.55 and 8.23 ± 0.39 mm and 89.15 ± 5.38 and 74.89 ± 3.69%, respectively). Bulk-fill restorations without thermocycling exhibited a higher mean value of marginal free gap and adaptation in mm/percent than the thermocycled one with a significant difference recorded at P value of 0.005. Conclusion Using preheated VisCalor bulk-fill composites could decrease the marginal gap formation improving the continuity at the tooth–restorative material interface than conventional bulk-fill restorations. On the other hand, thermocycling.