No abstract

This study evaluated the degree of conversion (DC) and polymerization shrinkage (PS) of contemporary bulk-fill resin-based composites (RBCs) including giomer materials. Two giomer bulk-fill (Beautifil Bulk Restorative [BBR], Beautifil Bulk Flowable [BBF]), two nongiomer bulk-fill (Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-fill [TNB], Smart Dentin Replacement [SDR]), and three conventional non-bulk-fill (Beautifil II [BT], Beautifil Flow Plus [BF], Tetric N-Ceram [TN]) RBCs were selected for the study. To evaluate the DC, disc-shaped specimens of 5-mm diameter and 2-mm, 4-mm, and 6-mm thickness were fabricated using customized Teflon molds. The molds were bulk filled with the various RBCs and cured for 20 seconds using a light-emitting diode curing light with an irradiance of 950 mW/cm. The DC (n=3) was determined by attenuated total reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy by computing the spectra of cured and uncured specimens. PS (n=3) was measured with the Acuvol volumetric shrinkage analyzer by calculating specimen volumes before and after light curing. The mean DC for the various materials ranged from 46.03% to 69.86%, 45.94% to 69.38%, and 30.65% to 67.85% for 2 mm, 4 mm, and 6 mm, respectively. For all depths, SDR had the highest DC. While no significant difference in DC was observed between depths of 2 mm and 4 mm for the bulk-fill RBCs, DC at 2 mm was significantly greater than 6 mm. For the conventional RBCs, DC at 2 mm was significantly higher than at 4 mm and 6 mm. Mean PS ranged from 1.48% to 4.26% for BBR and BF, respectively. The DC at 2 mm and PS of bulk-fill RBCs were lower than their conventional counterparts. At 4 mm, the DC of giomer bulk-fill RBCs was lower than that of nongiomer bulk-fill materials.

Objectives: This study compared different cytotoxicity test models for evaluating resin-based composites (RBCs) and assessed the biocompatibility of standard and bulk-fill RBCs. Methods: A standard (spectrum TPH) and a bulk-fill (smart dentin replacement (SDR)) RBC were selected. Disc-shaped specimens (7 mm diameter) of 2 and 4 mm thickness were polymerized for 20 s with a LED curing light of 700 mW/cm2 irradiance. The specimens ( n = 5) were subjected to micro-hardness testing and three cytotoxicity test models (direct contact, indirect contact and extract tests) with the established L-929 cell line. Hardness ratios of top and bottom surfaces of specimens were computed to assess the effectiveness of cure. For the direct and indirect contact tests, the cells were stained and zones of inhibition were analyzed after material contact for 24 h. For the extract test, cells were exposed to extracts for 24 h, and cell viability was measured. Data was analyzed using analysis of variance/Scheffe’s post hoc test and Pearson’s correlation ( p < 0.05). Results: The lowest mean hardness ratio and highest cytotoxicity were observed for TPH at 4 mm. At 4-mm thickness, SDR was found to be biocompatible with all three models. Correlations between hardness ratio and cell viability ranged from r = 0.89–0.96 for the various tests. A significant correlation ( r = 0.97) was also observed between the three test models. Conclusion: Our data indicated consistency between direct contact, indirect contact and extract test models for cytotoxicity testing of RBCs. Bulk placement and curing at 4 mm for the bulk-fill RBC evaluated did not result in undue cytotoxicity.