GrandioSO Heavy Flow Research Articles

Influence of different viscosity and chemical composition of flowable composite resins: A 48-month split-mouth double-blind randomized clinical trial

ObjectivesTo evaluate the clinical performance of two flowable composites based on methacrylate and one based on ormocer in treating non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) after 48-month evaluation in a split-mouth double-blind clinical study design. MethodsA total of 183 restorations were performed on NCCLs using a universal adhesive system (Futurabond U, Voco GmbH) with selective enamel etching on 27 participants: two participants received twelve restorations each, three received nine restorations each, and 22 participants received six restorations each. Three different flowable composites were employed (n = 61): a low-viscosity methacrylate-based composite (GrandioSO Flow, LVM), a high-viscosity methacrylate-based composite (GrandioSO Heavy Flow, HVM), and an ormocer-based flowable composite (Admira Fusion Flow, ORM). All restorations were evaluated using FDI and USPHS criteria after 48 months. Statistical analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier Survival analysis and Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance rank (α = 0.05). ResultsAfter 48 months, 17 restorations were lost: LVM 6, HVM 9, ORM 2. The retention rates (95 % confidence interval) were 89.4 % for LVM, 80.4 % for HVM, and 95.6 % for ORM, with a significant difference between HVM vs. LVM and HVM vs. ORM (p < 0.05). Minor defects were observed in 30 restorations for marginal staining criteria (LVM 12, HVM 10, ORM 8) and in 71 restorations for marginal adaptation criteria (LVM 24, HVM 20, ORM 27) without significant difference between groups (p > 0.05). No restorations showed postoperative sensitivity or recurrence of caries. SignificanceThe increased viscosity of flowable composites could reduce the clinical longevity in NCCLs after 48 months. Ormocer-based and low-viscosity methacrylate-based flowable composites showed a successful clinical performance in NCCLs after 48 months.

Is there a correlation between physical properties and film thickness of dual- and photo-polymerized resin cements and CAD/CAM-dentin micro-tensile bond strength?

To correlate µTBS of different resin cements with their film thickness (FT), Vickers hardness (HV), and ultimate tensile strength (UTS). Human molars (N = 30) were divided into six-groups according to 1: Resin cement: Bifix QM, (BF), GrandioSo Heavy Flow (GHF) and VisCalor Bulk (VB), and 2: Adhesive mode (Optibond Universal): Etch-and-rinse (E&R) or self-etching (SE). CAD/CAM blocks (7 × 7 × 4 mm3) were air-abraded using 50 μm Al2O3 and silane was applied (60 s), and air dried (10 s). For E&R, dentin was etched (15 s), rinsed (30 s), and blot-dried. For both modes, adhesive was applied (20 s), air-dried (5 s), and photo-polymerized (10 s). Sticks (1 × 1 mm2) were stored for 24-h or 6-months. Sticks were pulled in tension (1 mm/min). Debonded sticks were evaluated for failure mode analysis. For FT, nine-bonded slabs from each cement was prepared and evaluated. For UTS, eight-hourglass specimens from each cement were prepared and tested in tension. For HV, five-discs from each cement was prepared and evaluated using a HV tester. Data were analyzed using ANOVA/Pearson’s correlation tests (α = 0.05). No correlation between µTBS/HV was revealed (p > 0.05). A positive correlation between µTBS/FT and µTBS/UTS (p < 0.05) was observed. Three-way ANOVA revealed all experimental factors had a significant effect on µTBS (p < 0.05). The VB showed significantly lower µTBS (20.8 ± 9.3 MPa). The E&R mode showed higher µTBS (26.0 ± 10.9 MPa), and 24-h revealed a higher µTBS (27.4 ± 10.0 MPa). Mixed failure was the predominant type (42.51%). The VB showed the highest FT (122.2 ± 11.9 µm), with GHF revealed higher UTS and HV (112.5 ± 19.7 MPa and 91.6 ± 0.4 Kgf, respectively). Photo-polymerized flowable composite can substitute dual-polymerized cement for CAD/CAM composite bonding.

Evaluation of Monomer Releasing from Dentin Replacement Materials

The aim of this study is to determine and quantify the monomer elution from four different resin-based composite dentin replacement materials for 3 months using HPLC. Four different composite dentin replacement materials were used in the present study: EverX (EVX), X-tra base (XTB), SDR (SDR), and GrandioSO Heavy Flow (GHF). Fifteen samples from each material were prepared (5×5×4 mm). After preparation, each specimen was immersed in a 10 ml 75% ethanol/distilled water solution for three different periods: 1 h, 24 h, and 3 months (n=5). After the immersion period, 0.5 ml of solutions were taken from each bottle and analyzed using HPLC. At the end of the 3-month immersion period, the elution of monomers was determined mostly from SDR, GHF, EVX, and XTB, respectively. TEGDMA, the most released monomer of all groups, was released from all samples after 1 h, 24 h, and 3 months. The amount of monomer released in all composite groups at the end of the 3-month immersion period was significantly higher than the monomer amounts released after the 1-hour immersion period. The monomers were eluted from the composite dentin replacement materials during all immersion periods, and the amount of eluted monomers was increased with time.

A 24-month clinical evaluation of composite resins with different viscosity and chemical compositions: a randomized clinical trial.

To evaluate the clinical performance of two methacrylate-based flowable composites and an Ormocer-based flowable composite in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) in adult participants. One hundred eighty-three restorations were performed on NCCLs. All cavities were restored using a universal adhesive system (Futurabond U, Voco GmbH) with selective enamel etching and with one of the three evaluated flowable composites (n = 61): low-viscosity methacrylate-based composite (GrandioSO Flow, LV), high-viscosity methacrylate-based composite (GrandioSO Heavy Flow, HV), and an Ormocer-based flowable composite (Admira Fusion Flow, ORM). All restorations were evaluated using FDI and USPHS criteria after 24 months. Kruskall Wallis analysis of variance rank (α = 0.05) was used for statistical analysis. After 24 months of clinical evaluation, sixteen restorations were lost (LV = 3, HV = 10, ORM = 3) and the retention rates (95% confidence interval) were 95.0% for LV, 82.2% for HV and 95.0% for ORM, with statistical differences observed between HV and LV as well as HV and ORM (p < 0.05). When secondary parameters were evaluated, no significant difference between groups were observed (p > 0.05). Thirty-three restorations (LV = 8, HV = 13, ORM = 12) showed minor marginal staining, seventy-one restorations (LV = 26, HV = 20, ORM = 25) presented small marginal adaptation defects and one restoration for HV presented recurrence of caries. The universal adhesive associated with the Ormocer-based and methacrylate-based flowable composite showed promising clinical performance after 24 months. However, the heavy-flow restorations showed significantly more failures.

Influence of viscosity and chemical composition of composite resins in non-carious cervical restorations: 12-month randomized clinical trial

Objective: The objective of this double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the clinicalperformance of two methacrylate-based flowable composite and ormocer-based flowable composite in non-cariouscervical lesions (NCCLs) of adult patients. Material and Methods: 183 restorations were performed on NCCLsusing the Futurabond U adhesive system, applied in the selective enamel etching mode in all cavities. After theadhesive application, the cavities were restored with one out of the three evaluated flowable composites (n = 61per group): ormocer-based flowable composite (Admira Fusion Flow, ORM), low viscosity methacrylate-basedcomposite (GrandioSO Flow, LV) and high viscosity methacrylate-based composite (GrandioSO Heavy Flow, HV).After 12 months of clinical performance, these restorations were evaluated according to FDI and USPHS criteriain the following items: retention/fracture, marginal adaptation, marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity andcaries recurrence. Results: eight restorations were lost/fractured after 12 months of clinical evaluation (1 inthe ORM and 7 in the HV group). The retention rates for 12- months (95% confidence interval) were 98.4%(91.3%-99.7%) for the ORM group, 100% (94.5%-100%) for the LV group and 88.5% (78.1%-94.3%) for theHV group, with no statistical difference identified between any pair of groups (p &gt; 0.05). Five restorationspresented small marginal adaptation defects at the 12-months evaluation recall, and all of them were consideredclinically acceptable. Conclusion: The clinical performance of the universal adhesive associated to ormocer-basedor methacrylate-based flowable composite were found to be promising after 12-month of clinical evaluation.KEYWORDSDental bonding; Dental restoration; Clinical trial.

The Influence of the Composite Resin Material on the Clinical Working Time in Fiberglass Reinforced Periodontal Splints

This study aims to find the most effective method in terms of clinical working time when applying fibreglass splints in the lower frontal group, depending on the type of composite material used. We have selected a group of 30 patients, aged between 50 and 70, with an average age of 57, in the interval March 2016 - June2017. These patients received immobilisations as part of their periodontal treatment, using a system consisting of fibreglass and three different types of composites. The shortest work time was obtained when using the Grandioso heavy flow composite, the next closest time being obtained with Gaenial flow universal. Our study indicated that the highly viscous flow composite resins offers the shortest clinical working time out of all tested materials.

Color stability comparisons of different type composite resins after curing and when aged in various staining solutions

Aim: To compare the color stability of two bulkfill (ormocer based or not), two flowable (high and low viscosity) and a universal nanohybrid composite resin after curing and when aged in different staining solutions. Material and Methods: Three hundred twenty discs were made from a low-flowable nanohybrid composite (GrandioSO Heavy Flow), a flowable nanohybrid composite (Grandio Flow), a bulkfill composite (GrandioSO x-tra), an ormocer-based bulkfill composite (Admira Fusion X-tra) and a universal nanohybrid composite (Grandio SO) (n=64). Specimens were subdivided into 4 subgroups, which were immersed in one of the following solutions for 3 hours a day for 30 days: distilled water, filter coffee, red wine and coke (n=16). Color evaluations were done using a dental spectrophotometer at three evaluation stages: immediately before curing, 24 hours after curing and 30 days of staining. Results: After curing; the universal nanohybrid and bulkfill composite showed significantly greater ΔE values than other type composite resins (p0.05). Bulkfill composite was the most stained resin type in all of the staining solution subgroups (p0.05). The bulkfill composite followed by universal and flowable nanohybrid composite and the ormocer based bulkfill composite showed the lowest ΔE values after coffee staining (p0.05). When effects of staining solutions are evaluated; coffee presented the highest staining effect, red wine was the second and, coke and water was the least stained solutions in application to all type of composite resins (p0.05).Conclusions: According to this study, it can be concluded that bulkfill composites showed the least resistance to staining and the ormocers were successful in color stability. In all tested materials, color changes after curing and after coffee staining were clinically perceptible. Therefore, when choosing a particular shade, such possible color changes should be taken into consideration.

Comparison of Microleakage among High Strength Flowable Composites Using Total Etch and Self-Etch Adhesives

Background: The recent flow-able composites available in the market claim high strength by increased filler content but their performance in micro leakage prevention in still not comparatively reported. Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the microleakage of five commercially available high strength flowable composite as preventive resin restoration using total etch and self-etch adhesives. Methodology: 100 first maxillary premolars with prominent fissures were selected for the study and sealed with Filtek-Z350 XT Flow, Gaenial Universal Flow, Beautifil Flow Plus, Arabesk Flow and Grandio SO Heavy Flow.Subsequent to sealant application and embedding, the micro leakage was tested by immersing in methylene blue and subsequent stereomicroscopy. Results: Filtek Z-350 XT was better in self-etch technique over total etch technique. Arabesk Flow and Grandio SO Heavy Flow were better in total etch technique over self-etch technique. Conclusion: With considerations for pediatric dentistry, self-etch materials are recommended. Further clinical studies have to be carried out to draw relevant conclusions on the clinical perspectives.

Effect of Relining with Different Composite Resins on the Push-out Bond Strength of Anatomical Fiber Posts to Root Canal Dentin.

Relining fiber posts using composite resins helps the posts adapt to the anatomical space of the root canals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of composite resin type on the push-out bond strength of anatomical fiber posts to intra canal dentin. Forty-eight bovine upper incisors were prepared for post space after root canal therapy and randomly divided in to six groups. Five different types of composite resin (GrandioSO, GrandioSO Heavy Flow, X-tra Fil, X-tra base and everX Posterior) were used for relining the prepared fiber posts. In the control group, the prepared post was cemented into the post space without relining. Cervical, middle and apical cross-sections were achieved from each root and push-out test was conducted at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. One sample from each group was scanned using a micro-CT scanner which provided views from the apical, middle and coronal thirds. Data were analyzed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, repeated measures ANOVA and post hoc tests using SPSS 17 (P<0.05). Statistical analysis showed significant differences in terms of mean push-out bond strengths between different composite resin types and cross-sections (P<0.001). The mean push-out bond strength of the samples relined with Grandio SO composite resin (15.48±2.32) and X-tra Fil Bulk-fill composite resin (14.09±1.98) were significantly higher than that of other groups (P<0.05). The unrelined group had a mean push-out bond strength (5.94±1.45) which was significantly lower than that in other groups (P<0.05). In addition, there was a relationship between cross-sections and composite resin types (P<0.05). This in vitro study showed that the composite resins used for relining can affect the push-out bond strength to intra canal dentin based on their physical and mechanical properties.

Wear of Human Enamel Opposing Different Types of Direct Restorative Resin Composite Materials

Aim: to evaluate the wear of human enamel and different types of composite resin restorative materials when they oppose each otherMaterials and methods: six different types of restorative resin composites (Grandioso, Activa, Z250, Brilliant everglow, CAPO, Herculite XRV) were opposed by human enamel in a chewing simulator (Robota, Germany) the chewing simulator was adjusted to perform a sliding distance of 1mm under a constant force of 50N while composite is in contact with enamel. the loss of weight of enamel and opposing composite was considered as a value for the wear.Results: The highest wear was that of Grandioso heavy flow(5.8mg) followed by brilliant everglow (4mg) and Herculite ultra enamel(2.5mg) respectively and there was statistically significant differences among them as well as other materials. and the least values were recorded for CAPO (1.22mg), Z250 (1.24) and Activa (1.27) that were not statistically significantly different. Regarding opposing enamel wear the highest wear value was that of enamel opposing Brilliant everglow(7mg) and Z250 (6.4mg) both values were not statistically different. The values of Heculite ultra enamel (4.6) and Grandioso heavy flow (4mg) had no significant differences between them but showed significant difference with the above groups. The enamel wear opposing Activa (1mg) and CAPO (1.8mg) showed no statistically significant differences between them while they were significantly less than other groups. Conclusions: Different composite formulations recommended for use in stress bearing areas have different wear rates, opposing enamel wear is important to study as it is independent of composite wear.

Effects of composite viscosity and adhesive curing mode on marginal sealing of restorations

Objectives: Evaluate the influence of composite viscosity, adhesive systems curing mode and artificial aging on marginal sealing of composite resin restorations. Methods: 240 cavities were prepared in bovine incisors. Teeth were divided in two groups: GR – GrandioSO (Voco), conventional viscosity and GF – GrandioSO Heavy Flow (Voco), low viscosity. Each group was divided into 6 subgroups: FM – Futura Bond M (Voco), FDCL and FDCC – Futura Bond DC (Voco), light and chemical cured, CS – Clearfil S3 Bond (Kuraray), CDCL and CDCC – Cleafil DC (Kuraray), light and chemical cured. Half of all specimens were subjected to mechanical (300.000) and thermal cycling (1.000). Marginal gap was measured in an optical microscope. For microleakage, specimens were stained in 50% ammoniacal silver nitrate. Results: For marginal gap mean (μm), significant differences were shown for all factors (p = 0.000). Results for resin were GR: 28.1 and GF: 40.6; for adhesive CDCC: 28.67, CDCL: 32.25, CS: 34.12, FDCL: 36.10, FM: 36.50 and FDCC: 38.46; and for artificial aging WITHOUT: 29.05 and WITH: 39.65. For microleakage mean (mm), there were also differences for all factors (p = 0.000). Results for resin were GR: 2.68 and GF: 3.46; for adhesive FM: 2.85, CDCC: 3.00, FDCL: 3.08, CDCL: 3.15, CS: 3.16 and FDCC: 3.19; and for artificial aging WITHOUT: 2.66 and WITH: 3.48. Conclusion: Composite with conventional viscosity resulted in narrower marginal gaps and less microleakage. CDCC showed less marginal gap formation. The presence of thermo-mechanical cycling increased the values of gap and microleakage.

Filler Content, Surface Microhardness, and Rheological Properties of Various Flowable Resin Composites.

The objectives of this study were to determine the filler content, the surface microhardness (at baseline and after immersion in water for 2 years), and the rheological properties of various flowable resin composites. Three flowable resin composites (Grandioso Heavy Flow [GHF], Grandio Flow [GRF], Filtek Supreme XTE Flow [XTE]), one pit and fissure sealant resin composite (ClinPro [CLI]), and three experimental flowable resin composites with the same matrix and a variable filler content (EXPA, EXPB, EXPC) were tested. The filler content was determined by calcination. The Vickers surface microhardness was determined after polymerization and then after immersion in distilled water at 37°C for 7, 60, 180, 360, and 720 days. The rheological measurements were performed using a dynamic shear rheometer. The determined filler contents differed from the manufacturers' data for all the materials. The materials with the highest filler content presented the highest microhardness, but filler content did not appear to be the only influencing parameter. With respect to the values recorded after photopolymerization, the values were maintained or increased after 720 days compared with the initial microhardness values, except for GHF. For the values measured after immersion for 7 days, an increase in microhardness was observed for all the materials over time. All the materials were non-Newtonian, with shear-thinning behavior. At all the shear speeds, GRF presented a lower viscosity to GHF and XTE. GRF presented a low viscosity before photopolymerization, associated with high filler content, thereby providing a good compromise between spreadability and mechanical properties after photopolymerization.

Polymerization shrinkage kinetics and shrinkage-stress in dental resin-composites

ObjectivesTo investigate a set of resin-composites and the effect of their composition on polymerization shrinkage strain and strain kinetics, shrinkage stress and the apparent elastic modulus. MethodsEighteen commercially available resin-composites were investigated. Three specimens (n=3) were made per material and light-cured with an LED unit (1200mW/cm2) for 20s. The bonded-disk method was used to measure the shrinkage strain and Bioman shrinkage stress instrument was used to measure shrinkage stress. The shrinkage strain kinetics at 23°C was monitored for 60min. Maximum strain and stress was evaluated at 60min. The shrinkage strain rate was calculated using numerical differentiation. ResultsThe shrinkage strain values ranged from 1.83 (0.09) % for Tetric Evoceram (TEC) to 4.68 (0.04) % for Beautifil flow plus (BFP). The shrinkage strain rate ranged from 0.11 (0.01%s−1) for Gaenial posterior (GA-P) to 0.59 (0.07) %s−1 for BFP. Shrinkage stress values ranged from 3.94 (0.40)MPa for TET to 10.45 (0.41)MPa for BFP. The apparent elastic modulus ranged from 153.56 (18.7)MPa for Ever X posterior (EVX) to 277.34 (25.5) MPa for Grandio SO heavy flow (GSO). SignificanceThe nature of the monomer system determines the amount of the bulk contraction that occurs during polymerization and the resultant stress. Higher values of shrinkage strain and stress were demonstrated by the investigated flowable materials. The bulk-fill materials showed comparable result when compared to the traditional resin-composites.

Dynamic thermo-mechanical properties of various flowable resin composites.

BackgroundThis study compared the storage modulus (E’), the loss modulus (E’’) and the loss tangent (tan δ) of various flowable resin composites.Material and MethodsGrandio Flow (GRF), GrandioSo Heavy Flow (GHF), Filtek Supreme XTE (XTE) and Filtek Bulk Fill (BUL) flowable resins and Clinpro Sealant (CLI) ultra-flowable pit and fissure sealant resin were used. 25 samples were tested using a dynamical mechanical thermal analysis system in bending mode. Measurements were taken within a temperature range of 10 to 55°C. The results were statistically analyzed using mixed-effect and repeated-measure analysis of variance followed by paired multiple comparisons.ResultsFor all the materials, the E’ values decrease with temperature, whereas the tan δ values increase. Irrespective of the temperature, GHF and GRF present E’ and E’’ values significantly higher than all the other materials and CLI presents values significantly lower than all the other materials. Observation of the values for all the materials reveals a linear progression of the tan δ values with temperature.ConclusionsA variation in temperature within a physiological range generates modifications in mechanical properties without damaging the material, however. Filler content in volume terms appears to be the crucial parameter in the mechanical behavior of tested materials. Key words:Dynamic mechanical thermal analysis, elastic modulus, filler content, flowable resin composites, loss modulus, loss tangent.

The bond strength of highly filled flowable composites placed in two different configuration factors.

Objective:The aim of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of different flowable composite resins placed in different configuration factors (C-factors) into Class I cavities.Materials and Methods:Fifty freshly extracted human molars were divided into 10 groups. Five different composite resins; a universal flowable composite (AeliteFlo, BISCO), two highly filled flowable composites (GrandioSO Flow, VOCO; GrandioSO Heavy Flow, VOCO), a bulk-fill flowable composite (smart dentin replacement [SDR], Dentsply), and a conventional paste-like composite (Filtek Supreme XT, 3M ESPE) were placed into Class I cavities (4 mm deep) with 1 mm or 2 mm layers. Restored teeth were sectioned vertically with a slow-speed diamond saw (Isomet 1000, Buehler) and four micro-specimens (1 mm × 1 mm) were obtained from each tooth (n = 20). Specimens were subjected to μTBS test. Data were recorded and statistically analyzed with two-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post-hoc test. Fractured surfaces were examined using a scanning electron microscope.Results:The μTBS in SDR-1 mm were higher than other groups, where Filtek Supreme XT-2 mm and GrandioSO Flow-2 mm were lower. No significant differences were found between C-factors for any composite resin (P > 0.05).Conclusion:Bulk-fill flowable composite provided more satisfactory μTBS than others. Different C-factors did not affect mean μTBS of the materials tested.

Effect of adhesive type and composite viscosity on the dentin bond strength

Objectives: Evaluate the influence of composite resins viscosity and type of cure of the adhesive systems on the bond strength of composite resins submitted to artificial aging.Methods: Dentin specimens (n = 240) were divided into 2 groups: Group GC: GrandioSO, and Group GF: GrandioSO Heavy Flow. These groups were subdivided into 6: FM: Futurabond M – light cured, FDCC: Futurabond Dual Cure – chemical cured, FDCL: Futurabond Dual Cure – light cured, CS3: Clearfil S3 – light cured, CDCC: Clearfil Dual Cure – chemical cured, and CDCL: Clearfil Dual Cure – light cured. Resin blocks were build up on the dentin surface. Half of samples on each group were cut to obtain resin/dentin sticks (1 × 1 mm). The other half was first submitted to thermomechanical aging. The dentin/resin sticks were submitted to microtensile bond strength test and the results were analyzed using three-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α = 5%).Results: ANOVA showed significant influence for adhesive (p = 0.0000) and aging (p = 0.0001). No significant influence of the composite viscosity on bond strength was observed (ANOVA: p = 0.0861). For adhesive, the results of Tukey’s test (MPa) were CDCC: 13.44 (±5.13)a; FM: 14,01 (±2.71)a; CDCL: 14.51 (±4.98)a; FDCC: 18.66 (±7.13)b; CS3: 18.80 (±6.50)b; FDCL: 19.18 (±7.39)b. For aging: AGED: 14.99 (±6.32)a; NOT AGED: 17.87 (±5.97)b.Conclusion: Composite resin viscosities did not influence on the bond strength. Type of cure of the adhesives had influence on the bond strength. Thermomechanical aging decreased the bond strength.

A split-mouth randomized clinical trial of conventional and heavy flowable composites in class II restorations

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the 2-year clinical performance of class II restorations made with a composite resin with two different viscosities. Methods47 patients received two class II restorations (n=94), one made with GrandioSO (conventional viscosity – CV), and the other with GrandioSO Heavy Flow (flowable viscosity – FV), subjecting both materials to the same clinical conditions. The self-etching adhesive Futurabond M was used for all restorations. The composites were inserted using the incremental technique. The restorations were evaluated using the modified USPHS criteria according to the periods: baseline, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years after restorative procedures. ResultsAfter 24 months, 40 patients attended the recall and 78 restorations were evaluated. In all periods, no secondary caries was observed. After 6 months, there were slightly overall changes of scores for most parameters. After 24 months, the higher number of changes from score Alfa to Bravo was observed for marginal discolouration (32.5% – CV and 39.5% – FV) and colour match (15% – CV and 31.6% – FV), followed by proximal contact (25% – CV and 23.7% – FV) and marginal adaptation (20% – CV and 21.1% – FV). For wear, surface texture and postoperative sensitivity the changes were very small. Just two restorations were lost during the 24-month follow up. Less than 5% of all restorations showed postoperative sensitivity. Chi-square test showed no significant differences between the two materials for all parameters analysed. ConclusionAfter 2 years of clinical service, no significant differences were observed between GrandioSO conventional and GrandioSO Heavy Flow for the parameters analysed. Both materials provided acceptable clinical behaviour in class II restorations. Clinical SignificanceThis study presents the possibility of using a flowable composite with high filler content, for performing class II restorations.

Bond Strength of composite repairs using flowable or conventional resins or the association of both

Objectives: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effects of flowable resin as an intermediate agent on composite repairs on bond strength. Methods: Thirty truncated cones of Grandio SO (VOCO) were prepared and thermo-cycled for 5000 cycles for artificial aging. Specimen’s surface were sandblasted with aluminum oxide, cleaned with air/water spray and conditioned with phosphoric acid for 15s. After that, one coat of Admira Bond Adhesive (VOCO) was applied and light cured for 20s. Specimens were divided into 3 groups according to the repair material used (n= 10): Conventional Resin – Grandio SO (R), A thin layer of Flowable resin – Grandio SO Heavy Flow + conventional Resin (FR) and Flowable resin (F). Over the original specimens, a sectional cone-shape teflon matrix was hold in position , and the cones were built, according the groups described above. Another thirty specimens were built, 10 of each group, simulating a restoration without repair. Specimens were submitted to tensile stress in a universal testing machine. Data were recorded in MPa and evaluated with ANOVA, Tukey´ s and non-paired “t’’ tests. Results: ANOVA showed significant differences between groups which were performed repair (p&lt; 0.00). The results of Tukey´ s test for these groups were: R (19.89 5.31)ab, F+R (14.49 5.59)a, F (20.91 3.99)b. The groups followed by the same letter did not show statistical differences. Non-paired “t” test showed that groups R and F repairs were similar of the correspondent groups which simulated a restoration without repair. Conclusions: The repair with conventional or flowable composite produced bond strength values similar to cohesive strength of the same materials. The use of a thin layer of flowable resin as an intermediate agent in composite repair decreased the bond strength when compared the same method for restoration.

Microleakage in Class II composite restorations with margins below the CEJ: In vitro evaluation of different restorative techniques

Objectives: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the microleakage in “deep” Class II composite restorations with gingival cavosurface margin below the CEJ (cemento-enamel junction) and restored with different techniques. Study Design: Fifty human teeth were used. In each tooth two standardized Class II slot cavities (on mesial and on distal surfaces) were prepared: the buccolingual extension of the cavities was 4 mm; the gingival wall was located in dentin/cementum (2 mm beyond the CEJ). The prepared teeth were randomly assigned to 5 experimental groups (of 10 specimens and 20 cavities each) and restored. Group 1: Filtek TM Supreme XTE Flowable (3MESPE) + Universal Filtek Supreme XTE (3MESPE), Group 2: GrandioSO Heavy Flow (Voco) + GrandioSo (Voco), Group 3: SDR™ (Dentsply Caulk) + Esthet-X® HD (Dentsply Caulk), Group 4: SonicFill (Kerr), Group 5: Grandio (Voco). After thermocycling, the specimens were immersed in a 0.5% basic fuchsine dye solution and incubated at 37°C for 24 hours. The teeth were subsequently sectioned mesiodistally. All specimens were examined at 25× in a stereomicroscope and standardized digital images were obtained. Dye penetration was measured from gingival margins. Results: The results demonstrated no significant leakage differences between Group 4 and Group 5, that both showed significantly higher frequency distribution of Score 0. Group 2 and Group 3 showed a significant prevalence of Score 1, whereas Group 1 showed significantly higher frequency of Score 2. Conclusions: None of the restorative techniques tested completely eliminated microleakage dye penetration in dentin margins; marginal adaptation in Class II composite restorations with gingival wall below the CEJ varied in both substrates and from different restorative techniques used. Key words:Microleakage, Class II composite restorations, CEJ.