Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 1063–1070 | Cite as

Evaluation of cavity wall adaptation of bulk esthetic materials to restore class II cavities in primary molars

  • Maria D. Gaintantzopoulou
  • Vellore K. Gopinath
  • Spiros Zinelis
Original Article



The purpose of the study was to assess the cavity wall adaptation and gap formation of a bulk fill composite resin and reinforced conventional glass ionomer cement and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class II restorations on primary molars.

Materials and methods

Standardized class II slot cavity preparations were prepared in exfoliating primary molars. Teeth were restored with one of the three tested materials (n = 10): SonicFill bulk fill composite resin (SF), EQUIA Fil conventional reinforced glass ionomer cement (EQF), and Vitremer resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement (VT). Cavity wall adaptation of the restorations was investigated by computerized X-ray micro-tomography and the percentage void volume fraction (%VVF) was calculated. Same specimens were sectioned and the interfaces were evaluated by reflection optical microscopy to measure the percentage linear length (%LD) of the interfacial gaps. Samples were further evaluated by environmental scanning electron microscopy (ESEM).


EQF and SF showed significantly lower %VVF and %LD values than VT (p < 0.05). This was in accordance with ESEM findings where VT illustrated extended interfacial gaps.


SF and EQF showed better cavity wall adaptation than VT in class II restorations on primary molars.

Clinical relevance

High-strength conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC EQF) and bulk fill composite SF requiring fewer application steps and reduced operating time than the traditional composite resin materials showed good cavity wall adaptation. Short operating time and good cavity wall adaptation are advantages of the materials in restorative and pediatric dentistry, especially while working on children with limited attention span.


Cavity adaptation Bulk fill composites Glass ionomer cements Computerized X-ray micro-tomography 



This project was supported by the College of Graduate Studies and Research, University of Sharjah research grant, Project No. 141014. The authors are grateful to Mr. Petros Tsakiridis (technical assistant, Department of Biomaterials, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece) for his assistance in the micro-XCT evaluation of the samples.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


The work was supported by the College of Graduate Studies and Research, University of Sharjah in United Arab Emirates.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. For the collection of the exfoliating primary molars, ethical approval was taken by the Ethical and Research Committee of the University of Sharjah protocol (141014). All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients’ parents for the collection of the exfoliating primary molars used in this study.


  1. 1.
    Qvist V, Manscher E, Teglers PT (2004) Resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8-year results. J Dent 32:285–294CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T (2007) Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials–fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation. Dent Mater 23:343–362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ilie N, Hickel R, Valceanu AS, Huth KC (2012) Fracture toughness of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 16:489–498CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bala O, Arisu HD, Yikilgan I, Arslan S, Gullu A (2012) Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements. Eur J Dent 6:79–86PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhao J, Xie D (2011) A novel hyperbranched poly(acrylic acid) for improved resin-modified glass-ionomer restoratives. Dent Mater 27:478–486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zoergiebel J, Ilie N (2013) Evaluation of a conventional glass ionomer cement with new zinc formulation: effect of the coating aging and storage agents. Clin Oral Investig 17:619–626CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burgess J, Cakir D (2010) Comparative properties of low-shrinkage composite resins. Compend Contin Educ Dent 31(Spec No 2):10–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    El-Damanhoury H, Platt J (2014) Polymerization shrinkage stress kinetics and related properties of bulk-fill resin composites. Oper Dent 39:374–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moorthy A, Hogg CH, Dowling AH, Grufferty BF, Benetti AR, Fleming GJ (2012) Cuspal deflection and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with bulk-fill flowable resin-based composite base materials. J Dent 40:500–505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flury S, Peutzfeldt A, Lussi A (2014) Influence of increment thickness on microhardness and dentin bond strength of bulk fill resin composites. Dent Mater 30:1104–1112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Ende A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B (2013) Bulk-filling of high C-factor posterior cavities: effect on adhesion to cavity-bottom dentin. Dent Mater 29:269–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Dijken JW, Pallesen U (2014) A randomized controlled three year evaluation of “bulk-filled” posterior resin restorations based on stress decreasing resin technology. Dent Mater 30:e245–e251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ástvaldsdóttir Á, Dagerhamn J, van Dijken JW, Naimi-Akbar A, Sandborgh-Englund G, Tranæus S, Nilsson M (2015) Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults—a systematic review. J Dent J Dent 43:934–954CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chadwick BL, Evans DJ (2007) Restoration of class II cavities in primary molar teeth with conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 8:14–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garcia-Godoy F, Krämer N, Feilzer AJ, Frankenberger R (2010) Long-term degradation of enamel and dentin bonds: 6-year results in vitro vs. in vivo. Dent Mater 26:1113–1118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ, Feilzer AJ, Verdonschot EH (1998) Marginal integrity and postoperative sensitivity in class 2 resin composite restorations in vivo. J Dent 26:555–562CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rahiotis C, Tzoutzas J, Kakaboura A (2004) In vitro marginal adaptation of high-viscosity resin composite restorations bonded to dentin cavities. J Adhes Dent 6:49–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jacobsen T, Söderholm KJ, Yang M, Watson TF (2003) Effect of composition and complexity of dentin-bonding agents on operator variability—analysis of gap formation using confocal microscopy. Eur J Oral Sci 111:523–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Idriss S, Habib C, Abduljabbar T, Omar R (2003) Marginal adaptation of class II resin composite restorations using incremental and bulk placement techniques: an ESEM study. J Oral Rehabil 30:1000–1007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kakaboura A, Rahiotis C, Watts D, Silikas N, Eliades G (2007) 3D-marginal adaptation versus setting shrinkage in light-cured microhybrid resin composites. Dent Mater 23:272–278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gjorgievska E, Nicholson JW, Iljovska S, Slipper IJ (2008) Marginal adaptation and performance of bioactive dental restorative materials in deciduous and young permanent teeth. J Appl Oral Sci 16:1–6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Campos EA, Ardu S, Lefever D, Jassé FF, Bortolotto T, Krejci I (2014) Marginal adaptation of class II cavities restored with bulk-fill composites. J Dent 42:575–581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Furness A, Tadros MY, Looney SW, Rueggeberg FA (2014) Effect of bulk/incremental fill on internal gap formation of bulk-fill composites. J Dent 42:439–449CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sidhu SK, Sherriff M, Watson TF (1997) The effects of maturity and dehydration shrinkage on resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations. J Dent Res 76:1495–1501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xie H, Zhang F, Wu Y, Chen C, Liu W (2008) Dentine bond strength and microleakage of flowable composite, compomer and glass ionomer cement. Aust Dent J 53:325–331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gleicher H, Fuks AB, Sela J (1998) Adaptation of class II Vitremer restorations with and without primer: a morphometric study. Pediatr Dent 20:263–266PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gurgan S, Kutuk Z, Ergin E, Oztas S, Cakir F (2015) Four-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system. Oper Dent 40:134–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ferracane JL (2005) Developing a more complete understanding of stresses produced in dental composites during polymerization. Dent Mater 21:36–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Marshall SJ, Bayne SC, Baier R, Tomsia AP, Marshall GW (2010) A review of adhesion science. Dent Mater 26:e11–e16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Poitevin A, De Munck J, Van Ende A, Suyama Y, Mine A, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B (2013) Bonding effectiveness of self-adhesive composites to dentin and enamel. Dent Mater 29:221–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Leprince JG, Palin WM, Vanacker J, Sabbagh J, Devaux J, Leloup G (2014) Physico-mechanical characteristics of commercially available bulk-fill composites. J Dent 42:993–1000CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nicholson JW, Croll TP (1997) Glass-ionomer cements in restorative dentistry. Quintessence Int 28:705–714PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ferreira Fde M, do Vale MP, Jansen WC, Paiva SM, Pordeus IA (2007) Effect of mixing process on microleakage of glass ionomer cements used in atraumatic restorative treatment on primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent 31:251–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rossomando KJ, Wendt SL Jr (1995) Thermocycling and dwell times in microleakage evaluation for bonded restorations. Dent Mater 11:47–51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria D. Gaintantzopoulou
    • 1
  • Vellore K. Gopinath
    • 1
  • Spiros Zinelis
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Restorative and Preventive Dentistry, College of Dental MedicineUniversity of SharjahSharjahUnited Arab Emirates
  2. 2.Department of Biomaterials, School of DentistryNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations