Effect of sonic resin composite delivery on void formation assessed by micro-computed tomography

R. Hirata, R. R. Pacheco, E. Caceres, M. N. Janal, Mario F Romero, M. Giannini, P. G. Coelho, Frederick Rueggeberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to quantify the internal void volume formation in commercially available, resin composites inserted using conventional or sonic insertion methods, and analyzed using three-dimensional (3D) micro-computed tomography (lCT). Methods and Materials: Four resin composites were evaluated: one conventional (Herculite, Ultra, Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA), one flowable bulk fill (SureFil SDR Flow, Dentsply International, York, PA, USA), and two packable bulk fill (SonicFill, Kerr Corporation, and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, Ivoclar Vivadent Inc, Schaan, Liechtenstein). Eight groups were evaluated according to each resin composite type and insertion method (conventional or sonic; n=5). Forty ABS 3D-printed cylindrical molds, 5.0 mm in diameter and 4.0 mm in depth, were fabricated. For the conven-Tional resin composite, the mold was filled incrementally (two layers), while for bulk-fill resin composites, insertion was performed in a single increment. The sonic insertion method was performed using a specific handpiece (SonicFill Handpiece, Kerr Corporation). Resin composites were light cured using a multipeak light-emitting diode light-curing unit (VALO, Ultradent Products Inc, South Jordan, UT, USA) in its regular mode. Samples were evaluated by lCT, and data were imported into software (Amira, version 5.5.2, VSG, Burlington, MA, USA) for 3D reconstruction, from which the percentage of void volume was calculated. Data were analyzed using twoway analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc test at a preset alpha of 0.05. Results: The conventional insertion method resulted in reduced porosity, compared with sonic insertion, for SureFil SDR Flow and Tetric EvoCeram bulk fill. The sonic insertion method did not demonstrate any influence on void formation for Herculite Ultra or SonicFill. Conclusion: Results suggest that the sonic insertion method might increase void formation during resin composite delivery, depending on restorative material brand.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)144-150
Number of pages7
JournalOperative dentistry
Volume43
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2018

Fingerprint

Composite Resins
Tomography
Light
Liechtenstein
Fungi
Jordan
Porosity
Analysis of Variance
Software

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Effect of sonic resin composite delivery on void formation assessed by micro-computed tomography. / Hirata, R.; Pacheco, R. R.; Caceres, E.; Janal, M. N.; Romero, Mario F; Giannini, M.; Coelho, P. G.; Rueggeberg, Frederick.

In: Operative dentistry, Vol. 43, No. 2, 01.03.2018, p. 144-150.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hirata, R. ; Pacheco, R. R. ; Caceres, E. ; Janal, M. N. ; Romero, Mario F ; Giannini, M. ; Coelho, P. G. ; Rueggeberg, Frederick. / Effect of sonic resin composite delivery on void formation assessed by micro-computed tomography. In: Operative dentistry. 2018 ; Vol. 43, No. 2. pp. 144-150.
@article{2c69b5a7e27d4eafa88ef229814849f1,
title = "Effect of sonic resin composite delivery on void formation assessed by micro-computed tomography",
abstract = "Objectives: The aim of this study was to quantify the internal void volume formation in commercially available, resin composites inserted using conventional or sonic insertion methods, and analyzed using three-dimensional (3D) micro-computed tomography (lCT). Methods and Materials: Four resin composites were evaluated: one conventional (Herculite, Ultra, Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA), one flowable bulk fill (SureFil SDR Flow, Dentsply International, York, PA, USA), and two packable bulk fill (SonicFill, Kerr Corporation, and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, Ivoclar Vivadent Inc, Schaan, Liechtenstein). Eight groups were evaluated according to each resin composite type and insertion method (conventional or sonic; n=5). Forty ABS 3D-printed cylindrical molds, 5.0 mm in diameter and 4.0 mm in depth, were fabricated. For the conven-Tional resin composite, the mold was filled incrementally (two layers), while for bulk-fill resin composites, insertion was performed in a single increment. The sonic insertion method was performed using a specific handpiece (SonicFill Handpiece, Kerr Corporation). Resin composites were light cured using a multipeak light-emitting diode light-curing unit (VALO, Ultradent Products Inc, South Jordan, UT, USA) in its regular mode. Samples were evaluated by lCT, and data were imported into software (Amira, version 5.5.2, VSG, Burlington, MA, USA) for 3D reconstruction, from which the percentage of void volume was calculated. Data were analyzed using twoway analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc test at a preset alpha of 0.05. Results: The conventional insertion method resulted in reduced porosity, compared with sonic insertion, for SureFil SDR Flow and Tetric EvoCeram bulk fill. The sonic insertion method did not demonstrate any influence on void formation for Herculite Ultra or SonicFill. Conclusion: Results suggest that the sonic insertion method might increase void formation during resin composite delivery, depending on restorative material brand.",
author = "R. Hirata and Pacheco, {R. R.} and E. Caceres and Janal, {M. N.} and Romero, {Mario F} and M. Giannini and Coelho, {P. G.} and Frederick Rueggeberg",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2341/16-331-L",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "43",
pages = "144--150",
journal = "Operative Dentistry",
issn = "0361-7734",
publisher = "Indiana University School of Dentistry",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effect of sonic resin composite delivery on void formation assessed by micro-computed tomography

AU - Hirata, R.

AU - Pacheco, R. R.

AU - Caceres, E.

AU - Janal, M. N.

AU - Romero, Mario F

AU - Giannini, M.

AU - Coelho, P. G.

AU - Rueggeberg, Frederick

PY - 2018/3/1

Y1 - 2018/3/1

N2 - Objectives: The aim of this study was to quantify the internal void volume formation in commercially available, resin composites inserted using conventional or sonic insertion methods, and analyzed using three-dimensional (3D) micro-computed tomography (lCT). Methods and Materials: Four resin composites were evaluated: one conventional (Herculite, Ultra, Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA), one flowable bulk fill (SureFil SDR Flow, Dentsply International, York, PA, USA), and two packable bulk fill (SonicFill, Kerr Corporation, and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, Ivoclar Vivadent Inc, Schaan, Liechtenstein). Eight groups were evaluated according to each resin composite type and insertion method (conventional or sonic; n=5). Forty ABS 3D-printed cylindrical molds, 5.0 mm in diameter and 4.0 mm in depth, were fabricated. For the conven-Tional resin composite, the mold was filled incrementally (two layers), while for bulk-fill resin composites, insertion was performed in a single increment. The sonic insertion method was performed using a specific handpiece (SonicFill Handpiece, Kerr Corporation). Resin composites were light cured using a multipeak light-emitting diode light-curing unit (VALO, Ultradent Products Inc, South Jordan, UT, USA) in its regular mode. Samples were evaluated by lCT, and data were imported into software (Amira, version 5.5.2, VSG, Burlington, MA, USA) for 3D reconstruction, from which the percentage of void volume was calculated. Data were analyzed using twoway analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc test at a preset alpha of 0.05. Results: The conventional insertion method resulted in reduced porosity, compared with sonic insertion, for SureFil SDR Flow and Tetric EvoCeram bulk fill. The sonic insertion method did not demonstrate any influence on void formation for Herculite Ultra or SonicFill. Conclusion: Results suggest that the sonic insertion method might increase void formation during resin composite delivery, depending on restorative material brand.

AB - Objectives: The aim of this study was to quantify the internal void volume formation in commercially available, resin composites inserted using conventional or sonic insertion methods, and analyzed using three-dimensional (3D) micro-computed tomography (lCT). Methods and Materials: Four resin composites were evaluated: one conventional (Herculite, Ultra, Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA), one flowable bulk fill (SureFil SDR Flow, Dentsply International, York, PA, USA), and two packable bulk fill (SonicFill, Kerr Corporation, and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, Ivoclar Vivadent Inc, Schaan, Liechtenstein). Eight groups were evaluated according to each resin composite type and insertion method (conventional or sonic; n=5). Forty ABS 3D-printed cylindrical molds, 5.0 mm in diameter and 4.0 mm in depth, were fabricated. For the conven-Tional resin composite, the mold was filled incrementally (two layers), while for bulk-fill resin composites, insertion was performed in a single increment. The sonic insertion method was performed using a specific handpiece (SonicFill Handpiece, Kerr Corporation). Resin composites were light cured using a multipeak light-emitting diode light-curing unit (VALO, Ultradent Products Inc, South Jordan, UT, USA) in its regular mode. Samples were evaluated by lCT, and data were imported into software (Amira, version 5.5.2, VSG, Burlington, MA, USA) for 3D reconstruction, from which the percentage of void volume was calculated. Data were analyzed using twoway analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc test at a preset alpha of 0.05. Results: The conventional insertion method resulted in reduced porosity, compared with sonic insertion, for SureFil SDR Flow and Tetric EvoCeram bulk fill. The sonic insertion method did not demonstrate any influence on void formation for Herculite Ultra or SonicFill. Conclusion: Results suggest that the sonic insertion method might increase void formation during resin composite delivery, depending on restorative material brand.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049552857&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85049552857&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2341/16-331-L

DO - 10.2341/16-331-L

M3 - Article

C2 - 29394140

AN - SCOPUS:85049552857

VL - 43

SP - 144

EP - 150

JO - Operative Dentistry

JF - Operative Dentistry

SN - 0361-7734

IS - 2

ER -