Limits...
Evaluation of marginal integrity of four bulk-fill dental composite materials: in vitro study.

Orłowski M, Tarczydło B, Chałas R - ScientificWorldJournal (2015)

Bottom Line: In each tooth 4 cavities of class II were prepared.The highest rating (score 0, no dye penetration) was achieved by 93.33% of the restorations made of the SDR material, 90% of restorations of SonicFill system, 86.66% of restorations of the composite Filtek Bulk Fill, and 73.33% of restorations of the Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill.The performed study showed that bulk-fill flowable or sonic-activated flowable composite restorations have better marginal sealing (lack of discoloration) in comparison with bulk-fill paste-like composite.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Medical University of Lublin, Ulica Karmelicka 7, 20-081 Lublin, Poland.

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of the study was to compare under in vitro conditions marginal sealing of 4 different bulk-fill materials composite restorations of class II.

Methods: Comparative evaluation concerned 4 composites of a bulk-fill type: SonicFill, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, Filtek Bulk Fill, and SDR. The study used 30 third molars without caries. In each tooth 4 cavities of class II were prepared. The prepared tooth samples were placed in a 1% methylene blue solution for 24 h, and after that in each restoration the depth of dye penetration along the side walls was evaluated.

Results: The highest rating (score 0, no dye penetration) was achieved by 93.33% of the restorations made of the SDR material, 90% of restorations of SonicFill system, 86.66% of restorations of the composite Filtek Bulk Fill, and 73.33% of restorations of the Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill.

Conclusion: The performed study showed that bulk-fill flowable or sonic-activated flowable composite restorations have better marginal sealing (lack of discoloration) in comparison with bulk-fill paste-like composite.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Order of restorations in every tooth sample.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4385685&req=5

fig2: Order of restorations in every tooth sample.

Mentions: For all samples the adhesive used was an etch-and-rinse system, applied following the manufacturer's instructions. All cavities were etched with total etch technique for 30 s, using 37% phosphoric acid, and rinsed with water. Then, the adhesive system was applied for all samples according to the restoration material used and polymerized. In every tooth 4 restorations of different bulk-fill materials were placed: SonicFill (Kerr and KaVo), Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (Ivoclar Vivadent), Filtek Bulk Fill (3M ESPE), and SDR (Dentsply DeTrey). The application of all tested bulk-fill materials was performed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. SonicFill composite was inserted by sonic-activation using SonicFill handpiece, Filtek Bulk Fill, from a special syringe with the application dispenser, SDR from Compula tip using a dispensing device, and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill with manual filling instruments and burnishers. Polymerization of materials took place with the use of LED lamps (Advanced TPCD, USA) spectrum 440–490 nm, power 900 mW/cm2. The restorations were finished with fine-grit diamond bur, mounted in a turbine with a water spray, and polished with graded abrasive discs and rubbers together with polishing paste (KerrHawe). Totally there were 120 restorations of 4 different types of composite bulk-fill materials placed. The order of restorations in every sample was always the same and based on a clockwise order: on 12 h, Filtek Bulk Fill, on 3 h, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, on 6 h, SDR, and on 9 h, SonicFill (Figure 2).


Evaluation of marginal integrity of four bulk-fill dental composite materials: in vitro study.

Orłowski M, Tarczydło B, Chałas R - ScientificWorldJournal (2015)

Order of restorations in every tooth sample.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4385685&req=5

fig2: Order of restorations in every tooth sample.
Mentions: For all samples the adhesive used was an etch-and-rinse system, applied following the manufacturer's instructions. All cavities were etched with total etch technique for 30 s, using 37% phosphoric acid, and rinsed with water. Then, the adhesive system was applied for all samples according to the restoration material used and polymerized. In every tooth 4 restorations of different bulk-fill materials were placed: SonicFill (Kerr and KaVo), Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (Ivoclar Vivadent), Filtek Bulk Fill (3M ESPE), and SDR (Dentsply DeTrey). The application of all tested bulk-fill materials was performed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. SonicFill composite was inserted by sonic-activation using SonicFill handpiece, Filtek Bulk Fill, from a special syringe with the application dispenser, SDR from Compula tip using a dispensing device, and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill with manual filling instruments and burnishers. Polymerization of materials took place with the use of LED lamps (Advanced TPCD, USA) spectrum 440–490 nm, power 900 mW/cm2. The restorations were finished with fine-grit diamond bur, mounted in a turbine with a water spray, and polished with graded abrasive discs and rubbers together with polishing paste (KerrHawe). Totally there were 120 restorations of 4 different types of composite bulk-fill materials placed. The order of restorations in every sample was always the same and based on a clockwise order: on 12 h, Filtek Bulk Fill, on 3 h, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, on 6 h, SDR, and on 9 h, SonicFill (Figure 2).

Bottom Line: In each tooth 4 cavities of class II were prepared.The highest rating (score 0, no dye penetration) was achieved by 93.33% of the restorations made of the SDR material, 90% of restorations of SonicFill system, 86.66% of restorations of the composite Filtek Bulk Fill, and 73.33% of restorations of the Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill.The performed study showed that bulk-fill flowable or sonic-activated flowable composite restorations have better marginal sealing (lack of discoloration) in comparison with bulk-fill paste-like composite.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Medical University of Lublin, Ulica Karmelicka 7, 20-081 Lublin, Poland.

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of the study was to compare under in vitro conditions marginal sealing of 4 different bulk-fill materials composite restorations of class II.

Methods: Comparative evaluation concerned 4 composites of a bulk-fill type: SonicFill, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, Filtek Bulk Fill, and SDR. The study used 30 third molars without caries. In each tooth 4 cavities of class II were prepared. The prepared tooth samples were placed in a 1% methylene blue solution for 24 h, and after that in each restoration the depth of dye penetration along the side walls was evaluated.

Results: The highest rating (score 0, no dye penetration) was achieved by 93.33% of the restorations made of the SDR material, 90% of restorations of SonicFill system, 86.66% of restorations of the composite Filtek Bulk Fill, and 73.33% of restorations of the Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill.

Conclusion: The performed study showed that bulk-fill flowable or sonic-activated flowable composite restorations have better marginal sealing (lack of discoloration) in comparison with bulk-fill paste-like composite.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus