Visualization of Marginal Integrity of Resin-Enamel Interface by Holographic Interferometry

Evaluation of polymerization shrinkage of bulk-fill resin composites using microcomputed tomography

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the influence of cavity depth on polymerization shrinkage of bulk-fill resin composites with and without adhesive resin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Standardized box-shaped cavities (width, 4 mm; length, 5 mm, depth, 2 mm or 4 mm) were made on occlusal surfaces of extracted human third molars (N = 60). The teeth were assigned to 3 groups to receive bulk-fill resin composites (low-viscosity bulk-fill, SDR; high-viscosity bulk-fill; Filtek Bulk-Fill-FB; and TetricEvo Ceram Bulk-Fill-TB) in the prepared cavities with and without adhesive resin (Clearfil S3 Bond). Each specimen (n = 5 per group) was scanned twice using microcomputed tomography (micro-CT): once after application of the resin composite to the cavity prior to polymerisation and once after polymerisation. The shrinkage of volumetric loss (%) was measured using micro-CT. Data were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (alpha = 0.05).

RESULTS

The material type (p < 0.05), application of adhesive resin (p < 0.05) and cavity depth (p < 0.05) significantly affected the shrinkage values. The interaction terms were also significant (p < 0.05). All the bulk-fill resin composites tested showed significantly less shrinkage when applied in cavities with adhesive resin (0.94-2.55) compared with those without (2.01-3.45) (p < 0.05) and presented significantly more shrinkage after polymerisation (p < 0.05). At a 2-mm cavity depth without (2 mm, 2.28; 4 mm, 2.41) and with adhesive (2 mm, 0.94; 4 mm, 1.67), significantly less shrinkage was observed with FB compared with SDR and TB (p < 0.05). At a 4-mm cavity depth without (3.14) and with adhesive (2.55), SDR showed significantly higher shrinkage compared with FB and TB (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The bulk-fill composites tested presented less shrinkage when used in conjunction with adhesive resin application on dentin. Overall, the low-viscosity bulk-fill resin SDR showed more shrinkage compared with high-viscosity resins tested.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Low- or high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites should be applied on dentin after application of adhesive resin to decrease shrinkage.

Monomer conversion and shrinkage force kinetics of low-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the subsurface degree of conversion (DC) and shrinkage force formation of low-viscosity (flowable) bulk-fill composite materials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three flowable bulk-fill resin composites [SureFil SDR flow (SDR; Dentsply DeTrey), Venus Bulk Fill (VB; Heraeus Kulzer) and x-tra base (XB; VOCO)] and one conventional flowable control composite material [EsthetX flow (EX; Dentsply DeTrey)] were tested. The materials were photoactivated for 20 s at an irradiance of 1170 mW/cm2 and the DC (n=5) was recorded at 0.1-, 1.5- and 4-mm depth using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Shrinkage forces (n=5) of 1.5-mm-thick specimens were continuously recorded for 15 min using a custom-made stress analyzer. Data were statistically analyzed by ANOVA, Tukey's HSD and Bonferroni's post-hoc tests (α=0.05).

RESULTS

SDR generated the significantly lowest shrinkage forces (22.9±1.4 N), but also attained the significantly lowest DC at 1.5-mm depth (67.5±0.8%). The conventional flowable composite EX generated the significantly highest shrinkage forces (40.7±0.7 N) and reached a significantly higher DC (74.4±1.3%) compared to SDR and XB at 1.5-mm depth. The shrinkage force values of VB (29.4±1.1 N) and XB (28.3±0.6 N) were similar (p>0.05). All materials attained significantly higher DC at 4-mm depth than at the near-surface.

CONCLUSION

The tested low-viscosity bulk-fill materials show lower shrinkage force formation than a conventional flowable resin composite at high levels of degree of conversion up to 4-mm incremental thickness.