Effects of application method on shrinkage vectors and volumetric shrinkage of bulk-fill composites in class-II restorations

OBJECTIVES

Upon initial proximal wall construction, the favorable C-factor of class-II cavities may become unfavorable. This study investigated the application method on bulk-fill resin composite polymerization shrinkage.

METHODS

Occluso-proximal class-II cavities were prepared in 40 molars and bonded with a self-etch adhesive (Adhese Universal). The study groups varied according to the resin composite application: group-1: bulk application, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TBF); group-2: proximal wall construction (TBF) and occlusal cavity filling (TBF); group-3: thin flowable liner layer, Tetric EvoFlow Bulk Fill (TEF) and bulk filling (TBF); group-4: flowable liner (TEF), proximal wall (TBF), occlusal cavity (TBF); and group-5: bulk application, SDR (3 mm) and capping layer (TBF, 1 mm). Each resin composite increment was scanned twice using micro-CT (uncured, cured 40 s) at a resolution of 16 µm. Shrinkage vectors and volumetric polymerization shrinkage were evaluated and statistically analyzed (one-way ANOVA). SEM images were used to investigate the tooth-restoration interface.

RESULTS

Shrinkage vectors differed significantly among the groups and were greatest in gp5-fl/SDR (47.6 µm), followed by gp1-TBF (23.8 µm) and least in gp5-fl/SDR+TBF (11.1 µm). Volumetric shrinkage varied significantly with the use of SDR (gp5-fl/SDR: 2.6%) and TEF (gp4-fl/TEF: 2.5%) to TBF (gp4-fl/TEF+wl/TBF: 0.6%) in the incremental application.

SIGNIFICANCE

Building a proximal resin composite wall yielded smaller shrinkage vectors than the bulk application. Applying a thin flowable liner decreased the shrinkage vectors, even more when building a proximal wall. A thin flowable liner is recommended when building a proximal resin composite wall.

Effects of flowable liners on the shrinkage vectors of bulk-fill composites

Objectives

This investigation evaluated the effect of flowable liners beneath a composite restoration applied via different methods on the pattern of shrinkage vectors.

Methods

Forty molars were divided into five groups (n = 8), and cylindrical cavities were prepared and bonded with a self-etch adhesive (AdheSe). Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TBF) was used as the filling material in all cavities. The flowable liners Tetric EvoFlow Bulk Fill (TEF) and SDR were used to line the cavity floor. In gp1-TBF, the flowable composite was not used. TEF was applied in a thin layer in gp2-fl/TEF + TBF and gp3-fl/TEF + TBFincremental. Two flowable composites with a layer thickness of 2 mm were compared in gp4-fl/TEF + TBF and gp5-fl/SDR + TBF. TEF and SDR were mixed with radiolucent glass beads, while air bubbles inherently present in TBF served as markers. Each material application was scanned twice by micro-computed tomography before and after light curing. Scans were subjected to image segmentation for calculation of the shrinkage vectors.

Results

The absence of a flowable liner resulted in the greatest shrinkage vectors. A thin flowable liner (gp2-fl/TEF + TBFbulk) resulted in larger overall shrinkage vectors for the whole restoration than a thick flowable liner (gp4-fl/TEF + TBF). A thin flowable liner and incremental application (gp3-fl/TEF + TBFincremental) yielded the smallest shrinkage vectors. SDR yielded slightly smaller shrinkage vectors for the whole restoration than that observed in gp4-fl/TEF + TBF.

Conclusions

Thick flowable liner layers had a more pronounced stress-relieving effect than thin layers regardless of the flowable liner type.

Clinical relevance

It is recommended to apply a flowable liner (thin or thick) beneath bulk-fill composites, preferably incrementally.

Shrinkage vectors in flowable bulk-fill and conventional composites: bulk versus incremental application

OBJECTIVES

Sufficient depth of cure allows bulk-fill composites to be placed with a 4-mm thickness. This study investigated bulk versus incremental application methods by visualizing shrinkage vectors in flowable bulk-fill and conventional composites.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cylindrical cavities (diameter = 6 mm, depth = 4 mm) were prepared in 24 teeth and then etched and bonded with OptiBond FL (Kerr, Italy). The composites were mixed with 2 wt% radiolucent glass beads. In one group, smart dentin replacement (SDR, Dentsply) was applied in bulk "SDR-bulk" (n = 8). In two groups, SDR and Tetric EvoFlow (Ivoclar Vivadent) were applied in two 2-mm-thick increments: "SDR-incremental" and "EvoFlow-incremental." Each material application was scanned with a micro-CT before and after light-curing (40 s, 1100 mW/cm²), and the shrinkage vectors were computed via image segmentation. Thereafter, linear polymerization shrinkage, shrinkage stress and gelation time were measured (n = 10).

RESULTS

The greatest shrinkage vectors were found in "SDR-bulk" and "SDR-increment2," and the smallest were found in "SDR-increment1-covered" and "EvoFlow-increment1-covered." Shrinkage away from and toward the cavity floor was greatest in "SDR-bulk" and "EvoFlow-increment2," respectively. The mean values of the shrinkage vectors were significantly different between groups (one-way ANOVA, Tamhane's T2 test, p < 0.05). The linear polymerization shrinkage and shrinkage stress were greatest in Tetric EvoFlow, and the gelation time was greatest in "SDR-bulk."

CONCLUSIONS

The bulk application method had greater values of shrinkage vectors and a higher debonding tendency at the cavity floor.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Incremental application remains the gold standard of composite insertion.

Effects of boundary condition on shrinkage vectors of a flowable composite in experimental cavity models made of dental substrates

OBJECTIVES

Bond strength to enamel and dentin depends on the bonding approach or condition. This study investigated the effects of the boundary conditions, in terms of the bonding substrate and the bonding condition, on the shrinkage vectors of a flowable composite.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An experimental cylindrical cavity (diameter = 6 mm, depth = 3 mm) consisting of the enamel floor and the surrounding dentin cavity walls was prepared for the "enamel-floor" group. Cylindrical cavities of the same dimensions were prepared with access from the occlusal enamel into dentin and served as controls. Each cavity model group was divided and bonded with two bonding conditions (n = 9): a self-etch (Adper Easy Bond, 3M ESPE) and a total-etch approach (OptiBond FL, Kerr). The composite (Tetric EvoFlow, Ivoclar Vivadent) was mixed with glass beads, applied to the cavity, scanned twice by micro-CT (uncured and cured states). The scans were evaluated by rigid registration, sphere segmentation, and registration for computing shrinkage vectors.

RESULTS

The free surface of all restorations moved downward. The shrinkage vectors in the experimental cavity model pointed downward towards the enamel cavity floor, and the net axial movement was downward. In the control group, shrinkage vectors additionally moved upward, away from the cavity floor. The effect of the bonding substrate and the bonding condition was investigated for the shrinkage vectors and the axial movement (univariate ANOVA).

CONCLUSION

The bonding substrate, enamel, influenced the shrinkage vectors' direction, while the bonding condition caused only variations in the magnitude.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Bonding to enamel influences shrinkage vectors' direction, while the bonding condition plays only a minor role. Graphical abstract ᅟ.

Shrinkage vectors of a flowable composite in artificial cavity models with different boundary conditions: Ceramic and Teflon

Polymerization shrinkage of dental resin composites leads to stress build-up at the tooth-restoration interface that predisposes the restoration to debonding. In contrast to the heterogeneity of enamel and dentin, this study investigated the effect of boundary conditions in artificial cavity models such as ceramic and Teflon. Ceramic serves as a homogenous substrate that provides optimal bonding conditions, which we presented in the form of etched and silanized ceramic in addition to an etched, silanized and bonded ceramic cavity. In contrast, the Teflon cavity presented a non-adhesive boundary condition that provided an exaggerated condition of poor bonding as in the case of contamination during the application procedure or a poor bonding substrate such as sclerotic or deep dentin. The greatest 3D shrinkage vectors and movement in the axial direction were observed in the ceramic cavity with the bonding agent followed by the silanized ceramic cavity, and smallest shrinkage vectors and axial movements were observed in the Teflon cavity. The shrinkage vectors in the ceramic cavities exhibited downward movement toward the cavity bottom with great downward shrinkage of the free surface. The shrinkage vectors in the Teflon cavity pointed towards the center of the restoration with lateral movement greater at one side denoting the site of first detachment from the cavity walls. These results proved that the boundary conditions, in terms of bonding substrates, significantly influenced the shrinkage direction.