Comparing marginal microleakage of three Bulk Fill composites in Class II cavities using confocal microscope: An in vitro study

Abstract

Aim:This study aims to evaluate and compare microleakage at the occlusal wall and cervical wall in Class II cavities restored with one SonicFill Bulk Fill composite and two conventional Bulk Fill composites.Materials and Methods:Thirty freshly extracted teeth were divided into three groups of 10 teeth each. Standardized Class II cavities were made on the mesial and distal surfaces of each tooth and restored using SonicFill Bulk Fill composite and two conventional Bulk Fill composites, Tetric Evo Ceram, and X-tra fil. After storage, thermocycling and immersion in 0.6% rhodamine dye solution specimens were sectioned and evaluated for microleakage at the occlusal and cervical walls using confocal microscope.Statistical Analysis Used:Kruskal-Wallis test, Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test and Mann-Whitney U-test.Results:The results demonstrated that in the occlusal wall and cervical wall, SonicFill Bulk Fill composite, showed significantly less marginal microleakage than the other groups.Conclusion:Based on the results of this study, SonicFill Bulk Fill composite showed less microleakage than the other conventional Bulk Fill composites.

The effect of different insertion techniques on the depth of cure and vickers surface micro-hardness of two bulk-fill resin composite materials

“…Whenever the sonic energy is applied, the modifier causes the monomer viscosity to drop (up to 87%), increasing the flowability of the resin composite. Such drop might be responsible for the lower surface micro-hardness value ( 17 ).…”

Micro-Ct Evaluation of Adaptation at Tooth/Restoration Interface Using Three Resin Composite Restorations Placed With Different Filling Techniques

“…These studies investigated marginal and internal adaptation, depth of curing, polymerization shrinkage and other mechanical properties. 3,5,6,16,23 Polymerization shrinkage of resin composite inserted into a cavity in natural dentition is affected by many factors including the configuration factor (C-Factor) of the prepared cavity, the efficiency of light curing unit, distance between the curing tip and the surface of restoration, compositional differences between enamel and dentin. However, in the present study, the C-Factor, the curing method, and the bonding system were uniform in all specimens; only the type of resin composite material and placement technique were varied.…”

“…Of these methods were; alterations in the chemistry of the organic matrix, amount of inorganic matrix and the filling techniques. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Incremental filling technique is the conventional method of resin composite placement. Its concept is building up the restoration in thin increments of up to 2mm thickness.…”

“…There is an increase in the use of bulk-fill resin composite because its user-friendly, more simplified procedures and less clinical time needed. 2,3,5,11,12 Another innovation in the resin composite filling technique is the Sonic fill, developed by Kerr, USA. The sonic energy activates the lowviscosity composite and adapts it to the cavity walls, and carving the composite to the final shape while it reaches its final high viscosity.…”

“…The manufacturer claims reduced working time, reduced polymerization shrinkage and better internal adaptation. 5 Several methods have been proposed for the evaluation of marginal leakage or the internal adaptation at the resin composite/tooth interface. Dye penetration method is the most commonly used method.…”