Effect of Bulk/Incremental Fill on Internal Gap Formation of Bulk-Fill Composites
I bulk fill almost 1005 of my posterior restorations with Kerr's Sonicfill. MJ
Available online 27 January 2014
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 × 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). Dye was placed on
the margin and visually examined by 3 observers. Gap-free marginal
lengths were analyzed within three different regions of the sectioned
tooth: enamel, mid-dentin, 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-dentin than at the pulpal
floor for FSU. QX had more gap-free margins in enamel compared with the
mid-dentin. Proportion of gap-free margins within enamel and mid-dentin
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-dentin than at the pulpal floor for SF.
Conclusions
No
significant differences in gap-free margins were found between
placement method 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.
Comments