Effect of bulk/incremental fill on internal gap formation of bulk-fill composites

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

42 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives To examine the effects of composite type (bulk-fill/ conventional) and placement (4-mm bulk/2-mm increments) on internal marginal adaptation of Class I preparations. Methods Cylindrical, Class I, 4-mm × 4-mm preparations were made on 50 recently extracted human molars and restored using either a bulk-fill (SureFil SDR Flow (SDR), Quixx (QX), SonicFill (SF), Tetric EvoCeram Bulk (TEC)) or a conventional composite designed for 2-mm increments (Filtek Supreme Ultra (FSU)). Restorations were placed in 1 or 2 increments using the manufacturer's bonding agent and curing light (n = 5). Teeth were sectioned occluso-gingivally and dye was placed on the internal margin and visually examined by 3 observers. Gap-free marginal lengths were analysed within three different regions of the sectioned tooth: enamel, mid-dentine, and pulpal floor. Results Marginal integrity was unaffected by placement method. Bulk-placement demonstrated significantly fewer gap-free margins at the pulpal floor than in enamel, for all materials except SDR. Greater percentages of gap-free margins were found within the mid-dentine than at the pulpal floor for FSU. QX had more gap-free margins in enamel compared with the mid-dentine. Proportion of gap-free margins within enamel and mid-dentine was not significantly different for any incrementally placed product. Excluding FSU, gap-free margins within enamel were significantly greater than at the pulpal floor. Notably, significantly more gap-free margins were found within mid-dentine than at the pulpal floor for SF. Conclusions No significant differences in gap-free margins were found between placement methods within a given product per location. Except for SDR, percentage of gap-free margins was significantly lower at the pulpal floor interface than at the enamel interface for bulk-fill.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)439-449
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Dentistry
Volume42
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014

Fingerprint

Dental Enamel
Dentin
Tooth
Coloring Agents
Light
Filtek Supreme Ultra

Keywords

  • Bulk-fill
  • Composites
  • Margin adaptation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Effect of bulk/incremental fill on internal gap formation of bulk-fill composites. / Furness, Alan R; Tadros, Marko Yousef; Looney, Stephen Warwick; Rueggeberg, Frederick.

In: Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 42, No. 4, 01.01.2014, p. 439-449.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b4bf7b454d7040539b6d766990727a9b,
title = "Effect of bulk/incremental fill on internal gap formation of bulk-fill composites",
abstract = "Objectives To examine the effects of composite type (bulk-fill/ conventional) and placement (4-mm bulk/2-mm increments) on internal marginal adaptation of Class I preparations. Methods Cylindrical, Class I, 4-mm × 4-mm preparations were made on 50 recently extracted human molars and restored using either a bulk-fill (SureFil SDR Flow (SDR), Quixx (QX), SonicFill (SF), Tetric EvoCeram Bulk (TEC)) or a conventional composite designed for 2-mm increments (Filtek Supreme Ultra (FSU)). Restorations were placed in 1 or 2 increments using the manufacturer's bonding agent and curing light (n = 5). Teeth were sectioned occluso-gingivally and dye was placed on the internal margin and visually examined by 3 observers. Gap-free marginal lengths were analysed within three different regions of the sectioned tooth: enamel, mid-dentine, and pulpal floor. Results Marginal integrity was unaffected by placement method. Bulk-placement demonstrated significantly fewer gap-free margins at the pulpal floor than in enamel, for all materials except SDR. Greater percentages of gap-free margins were found within the mid-dentine than at the pulpal floor for FSU. QX had more gap-free margins in enamel compared with the mid-dentine. Proportion of gap-free margins within enamel and mid-dentine was not significantly different for any incrementally placed product. Excluding FSU, gap-free margins within enamel were significantly greater than at the pulpal floor. Notably, significantly more gap-free margins were found within mid-dentine than at the pulpal floor for SF. Conclusions No significant differences in gap-free margins were found between placement methods within a given product per location. Except for SDR, percentage of gap-free margins was significantly lower at the pulpal floor interface than at the enamel interface for bulk-fill.",
keywords = "Bulk-fill, Composites, Margin adaptation",
author = "Furness, {Alan R} and Tadros, {Marko Yousef} and Looney, {Stephen Warwick} and Frederick Rueggeberg",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jdent.2014.01.005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "439--449",
journal = "Journal of Dentistry",
issn = "0300-5712",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effect of bulk/incremental fill on internal gap formation of bulk-fill composites

AU - Furness, Alan R

AU - Tadros, Marko Yousef

AU - Looney, Stephen Warwick

AU - Rueggeberg, Frederick

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Objectives To examine the effects of composite type (bulk-fill/ conventional) and placement (4-mm bulk/2-mm increments) on internal marginal adaptation of Class I preparations. Methods Cylindrical, Class I, 4-mm × 4-mm preparations were made on 50 recently extracted human molars and restored using either a bulk-fill (SureFil SDR Flow (SDR), Quixx (QX), SonicFill (SF), Tetric EvoCeram Bulk (TEC)) or a conventional composite designed for 2-mm increments (Filtek Supreme Ultra (FSU)). Restorations were placed in 1 or 2 increments using the manufacturer's bonding agent and curing light (n = 5). Teeth were sectioned occluso-gingivally and dye was placed on the internal margin and visually examined by 3 observers. Gap-free marginal lengths were analysed within three different regions of the sectioned tooth: enamel, mid-dentine, and pulpal floor. Results Marginal integrity was unaffected by placement method. Bulk-placement demonstrated significantly fewer gap-free margins at the pulpal floor than in enamel, for all materials except SDR. Greater percentages of gap-free margins were found within the mid-dentine than at the pulpal floor for FSU. QX had more gap-free margins in enamel compared with the mid-dentine. Proportion of gap-free margins within enamel and mid-dentine was not significantly different for any incrementally placed product. Excluding FSU, gap-free margins within enamel were significantly greater than at the pulpal floor. Notably, significantly more gap-free margins were found within mid-dentine than at the pulpal floor for SF. Conclusions No significant differences in gap-free margins were found between placement methods within a given product per location. Except for SDR, percentage of gap-free margins was significantly lower at the pulpal floor interface than at the enamel interface for bulk-fill.

AB - Objectives To examine the effects of composite type (bulk-fill/ conventional) and placement (4-mm bulk/2-mm increments) on internal marginal adaptation of Class I preparations. Methods Cylindrical, Class I, 4-mm × 4-mm preparations were made on 50 recently extracted human molars and restored using either a bulk-fill (SureFil SDR Flow (SDR), Quixx (QX), SonicFill (SF), Tetric EvoCeram Bulk (TEC)) or a conventional composite designed for 2-mm increments (Filtek Supreme Ultra (FSU)). Restorations were placed in 1 or 2 increments using the manufacturer's bonding agent and curing light (n = 5). Teeth were sectioned occluso-gingivally and dye was placed on the internal margin and visually examined by 3 observers. Gap-free marginal lengths were analysed within three different regions of the sectioned tooth: enamel, mid-dentine, and pulpal floor. Results Marginal integrity was unaffected by placement method. Bulk-placement demonstrated significantly fewer gap-free margins at the pulpal floor than in enamel, for all materials except SDR. Greater percentages of gap-free margins were found within the mid-dentine than at the pulpal floor for FSU. QX had more gap-free margins in enamel compared with the mid-dentine. Proportion of gap-free margins within enamel and mid-dentine was not significantly different for any incrementally placed product. Excluding FSU, gap-free margins within enamel were significantly greater than at the pulpal floor. Notably, significantly more gap-free margins were found within mid-dentine than at the pulpal floor for SF. Conclusions No significant differences in gap-free margins were found between placement methods within a given product per location. Except for SDR, percentage of gap-free margins was significantly lower at the pulpal floor interface than at the enamel interface for bulk-fill.

KW - Bulk-fill

KW - Composites

KW - Margin adaptation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84897081149&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84897081149&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.01.005

DO - 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.01.005

M3 - Article

VL - 42

SP - 439

EP - 449

JO - Journal of Dentistry

JF - Journal of Dentistry

SN - 0300-5712

IS - 4

ER -