Abstract
Background. Bulk-fill composite resins are a new type of resin-based composite resins, claimed to have the capacity to be placed in thick layers, up to 4 mm. This study was carried out to evaluate factors affecting gap formation in Cl II cavities restored using the bulk-fill technique. Methods. A total of 60 third molars were used in this study. Two Cl II cavities were prepared in each tooth, one on the mesial aspect 1 mm coronal to the CEJ and one on the distal aspect 1 mm apical to the CEJ. The teeth were divided into 4 groups: A: The cavities were restored using the bulk-fill technique with Filtek P90 composite resin and its adhesive system and light-cured with quartz tungsten halogen (QTH) light-curing unit. B: The cavities were restored similar to that in group A but light-cured with an LED light-curing unit. C: The cavities were restored using the bulk-fill technique with X-tra Fil composite resin and Clearfil SE Bond adhesive system and light-cured with a QTH curing unit. D: The cavities were restored similar to that in group C but light-cured with an LED light-curing unit. The gaps were examined under a stereomicroscope at ×60. Data were analyzed with General Linear Model test. In cases of statistical significance (P<0.05), post hoc Bonferroni test was used for further analyses. Results. The light-curing unit type had no effect on gap formation. However, the results were significant in relation to the composite resin type and margin location (P<0.001). The cumulative effects of light-curing unit*gingival margin and light-curing unit*composite resin type were not significant; however, the cumulative effect of composite rein type*gingival margin was significant (P=0.04) Conclusion. X-tra Fil composite exhibited smaller gaps compared with Filtek P90 composite with both light-curing units. Both composite resins exhibited smaller gaps at enamel margins.
Highlights
Despite great advances in the field of composite resin technology and extension of its applications in restorative dentistry, they still have disadvantages, including high wear rate, low strength, technique sensitivity and more importantly, polymerization shrinkage that gives rise to gap formation at the restorative material‒cavity wall interface, leading to microleakage due to the internal and interfacial stresses it creates.[1]
The results were significant in relation to the composite resin type and margin location (P
X-tra Fil composite exhibited smaller gaps compared with Filtek P90 composite with both light-curing units
Summary
Despite great advances in the field of composite resin technology and extension of its applications in restorative dentistry, they still have disadvantages, including high wear rate, low strength, technique sensitivity and more importantly, polymerization shrinkage that gives rise to gap formation at the restorative material‒cavity wall interface, leading to microleakage due to the internal and interfacial stresses it creates.[1]. This study was carried out to evaluate factors affecting gap formation in Cl II cavities restored using the bulk-fill technique
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
