Marginal seal evaluation of self-etch flowable composite materials

Abstract

Introduction. The biggest drawback of composite materials is polymerization contraction and the existence of microcracks, therefore the market is now offering a wide variety of new composite materials. The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal seal using dye method of class V cavities restored with self-etching flowable composite material Vertise Flow polymerized with different light-curing techniques. Material and Methods. The study was conducted on 60 extracted intact human teeth (30 premolars, 30 molars). Two cavities Class V (3?2?2 mm) were prepared in all teeth. Cavities on buccal surfaces were filled with self-etching flowable composite Vertise Flow (Kerr Dental Products), and on lingual with flowable composite Tetric Flow (Ivoclar Vivadent) using the corresponding adhesive systems. Polymerisation was performed using Bluephase Led flashlight C8 (Ivoclar Vivadent). Microleakage was tested using dye in a silver nitrate solution. Dye penetration was measured using stereo loupes with micrometer scale and six times magnification. Results. Linear dye penetration in intact molars restored using the classical polymerization technique and Vertise Flow composite was 3.41 ?m while with Tetric Flow it was 4.23 ?m. In intact molars restored using soft-start polymerization technique and Vertise Flow the dye penetration was 1.25 ?m while for Tetric Flow it was 4.23 ?m. Mean dye penetration in intact molars restored using pulse curing technique and material Vertise Flow was 1.02 ?m while for the composite Tetric Flow it was 4.35 ?m. In intact premolars restored using conventional curing technique and Vertise Flow dye penetration was 1.14 ?m while for Tetric Flow it was 3.90 ?m. Dye penetration in intact premolars restored using soft-start polymerization technique and Vertise Flow was 0.75 ?m while for Tetric Flow it was 3.15 ?m. Using a pulse polymerization technique and Vertise Flow in intact premolars dye penetration was 1.45 ?m while for Tetric Flow it was 3.76 ?m. Conclusion. Vertise Flow, self-etching flowable composite showed better marginal seal than flowable composite resin Tetric Flow. Smaller microcracks with Vertise Flow were confirmed after applying all three light-curing polymerization techniques.

Evaluation of marginal adaptation of a self-adhering flowable composite resin liner: A scanning electron microscopic study

“…The difference in the results of the previously mentioned studies[ 16 17 ] from that of the present study could be attributed to the method of evaluation, the cavity design and the configuration factor. In these studies, Class V cavities were selected, and the sealing performance was evaluated regarding the extent of dye penetration visualized under a stereomicroscope at low-magnification (×16).…”

“…In the present study, no statistically significant difference was found between the groups contradicting the results of previous studies. [ 16 17 ] In a study,[ 16 ] where microleakage of Class V cavities restored with Dyad Flow was compared with two-step total-etch and SEA systems, Dyad Flow showed greater leakage at the apical margin than the other groups that was statistically significant. The application of acid etching provided better occlusal and cervical marginal sealing than those without.…”

“…The application of acid etching provided better occlusal and cervical marginal sealing than those without. Another study,[ 17 ] reported better marginal seal of self-adhering composite (Vertise Flow) compared to self-etch primer/flowable composite Tetric flow. In samples, restored with the Vertise flow, dye penetration was found to be lower, which was statistically significant compared to those restored with the Tetric flow.…”

“…In samples, restored with the Vertise flow, dye penetration was found to be lower, which was statistically significant compared to those restored with the Tetric flow. [ 17 ] However, for both materials, the dye leakage was lower on the occlusal wall than on the gingival wall. [ 17 ]…”

“…[ 17 ] However, for both materials, the dye leakage was lower on the occlusal wall than on the gingival wall. [ 17 ]…”