Influence of composite insertion technique on gap formation.

Abstract

Aim:To compare newer bulk-fill composites with an incrementally filled composite for adaptability and subsequent gap formation at the pulpal floor.Materials and Methods:Class I cavities were prepared in 60 intact molars, with a shallow depression in the center of the pulpal floor. The samples were divided into four groups (n = 15), according to the material used; smart dentine replacement (SDR), SonicFill, Ever X Flow and Z350 XT, restored to a depth of 4 mm. Following thermocycling, samples were sectioned buccolingually and examined under a stereomicroscope. Seven samples from each group were coated with nail varnish except for approximately 1 mm around the tooth restoration junction. These samples were examined under stereomicroscope after staining with 2% buffered methylene blue dye. The remaining samples were examined under a scanning electron microscope for gap formation. The data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Bonferroni test.Results:SDR showed the significantly best adaptability as compared to both SonicFill and Ever X Flow (comparable). However, significantly least adaptive capacity was seen in the incrementally filled group (Z350 XT).Conclusion:Bulk-fill composites performed better than incremental composites, demonstrating better adaptability and less gap formation at the pulpal floor.