25 posters,  112 authors,  45 institutions

ePostersLive® by SciGen® Technologies S.A. All rights reserved.

3
Margin Adapt. in Class II with Bulk-Fill Materials

Primary tabs

Rate

No votes yet

Statistics

448 reads

Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation in Class II Cavities Restored with Bulk-Fill and Self-Etch Adhesive

Delgado AJ1, Abdulhameed NF1, Olafsson VG2, Rodríguez LE1, Quesada AM1, Dilbone DA1

1 Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, University of Florida, Gainesville 2 Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Odontology, University of Iceland

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the marginal gap of different bulk fill materials in Class II cavity preparations. Materials and Methods: Fifty extracted maxillary premolars were mounted into phenolic rings and divided into five groups of 10. Proximal matrices were made with polyvinyl siloxane. Specimens received standardized MOD cavity preparations. A 2-step self-etch adhesive (OptiBond XTR) was applied and the preparations were restored with materials placed and light-cured as follows: Filtek Supreme Ultra in 2mm increments (FSI); Filtek Supreme Ultra in bulk (FSB); SonicFill in bulk (SF); SureFil SDR flow in bulk, covered with a 2mm occlusal layer of Filtek Supreme Ultra (SDR); Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill in bulk (TEB). Specimens were finished and polished using impregnated aluminum oxide discs (SofLex 3M ESPE) according to manufactures recommendations. The margin gap was measured in the buccal, lingual and gingival wall using a Keyence VHX1000 digital microscope at 200x magnification. Results: Mean maximum gap margin values were in microns (lingual, gingival, buccal): FSI (.0, 5.3, 9.8), SF (.7, 1.0, 5.5), SDR (0, .9, 1.6), TEB (0, 3.9, 3.3) and FSB (0, 0, 2.3). There is significant difference of gap in the gingival (p<0.008) and buccal (p<0.290). The lingual gap (.15) was statistically smaller than the gingival (p< 0.001) and the buccal (p< 0.000). The level of significance was set at 0.05. Conclusions: The tested bulk-fill composite resins showed less marginal gap than the conventional 2mm incremental technique. The lingual wall was the least affected with bulk fill.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Fifty extracted maxillary premolars were mounted into phenolic rings and divided into five groups of 10. Proximal matrices were made with polyvinyl siloxane prior to preparation to aid in anatomical reproduction. Specimens received standardized MOD cavity preparations based on the mesio-distal and bucco-lingual dimensions of the specimens (Figure 1). A 2-step self-etch adhesive (OptiBond XTR) was applied and the preparations and restored with materials as follows: Filtek Supreme Ultra in 2mm increments (FSI, pos. control); Filtek Supreme Ultra in bulk (FSB, neg. control); SonicFill in bulk (SF); SureFil SDR flow in bulk, covered with a 2mm occlusal layer of Filtek Supreme Ultra (SDR); TetricEvoCeram Bulk Fill (TEB). Specimens were finished and polished using impregnated aluminum oxide discs (SofLex) according to manufacturer ́s recommendations. The marginal gaps were measured on the buccal, lingual and gingival walls using a Keyence VHX1000 digital microscope at 200x magnification. When a gap was observed, it was measured with a standardized ruler in microns. (Figure 3). 

CONCLUSIONS

1. The tested bulk-fill composite showed less marginal gap than the conventional 2mm incremental technique.

2. The lingual wall was the least affected with bulk fill.

3. Surefil SDR (Denstply) demonstrated better marginal adaptation than the rest of the bulk fill material tested.

Enter Poster ID (e.gGoNextPreviousCurrent