Evaluation of surface microhardness and gingival marginal adaptation of three different bulk‐fill flowable resin composites: A comparative study

Abstract

ObjectivesTo evaluate surface microhardness and gingival marginal adaptation of three different bulk‐fill flowable resin composites (FB‐RBCs) in Class V cavities with enamel or dentin margins before and after thermocycling (TMC).Materials and MethodsThree available FB‐RBCs were used; Palfique Bulk Flow (PaBF) (Tokuyama Dental), SDR Flow+ Bulk Fill Flowable (Dentsply Sirona), and I‐Flow Bulk Fill (I‐Dental). Thirty discs were prepared from each type of FB‐RBCs. The discs were subjected to Vickers microhardness tester machine. Class V cavities were prepared on 180 molars. Gingival margins of half the specimens were prepared above CEJ and the other half below CEJ. Cavities were restored with FB‐RBCs for gingival marginal adaptation test. Two‐way ANOVA was used in microhardness, while three‐way ANOVA was used for marginal adaptation.ResultsThe used materials showed statistically significant differences in microhardness and marginal adaptation.ConclusionsRegarding microhardness, PaBF showed the highest value before TMC and SDR was the highest after TMC. Regarding marginal adaptation, SDR revealed the best marginal adaptation than PaBF and I‐flow, either subjected to TMC or not.Clinical SignificanceThe longevity of cervical restorations depend on both the location of the cavity margin and the material used. The microfractures in resin composite surface due to low surface microhardness as well as marginal gaps seen in laboratory studies could be considered as an indicative parameter for clinical problem associated with marginal differences.