Sufficiency of curing in high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites with enhanced opacity
- 157 Downloads
The study aims analyzing if improved opacity in modern high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites (BF-RBC) contradicts with the sufficiency of curing and to assess material’s tolerance to less ideal curing conditions.
Materials and methods
Simulated large cavities (10 × 6) mm were filled in one increment with three BF-RBCs (Filtek One, FO; Tetric Evo Ceram Bulk Fill, TEC-BF; SonicFill2, SF2). One central and two peripheral (4 mm apart from the center) micromechanical property line-profiles (HV, Vickers hardness; YHU, indentation modulus) were measured in 0.2-mm steps at 24 h post-polymerization (n = 6). Depth of cure (DOC) was calculated from the HV variation in depth. A scratch test (DOCscratch test) estimated the tolerance in polymerization when simulating clinically relevant curing conditions (exposure distance up to 7 mm; centered and with a 3-mm offset placement of the LCU). Irradiance and spectral distribution of the used light curing unit (LCU) were assessed at various curing conditions.
DOC varied among 3.6 mm (SF2, peripheral) and 5.7 mm (FO, central). The BF-RBC influences DOC stronger (p < 0.001, ηP2 = 0.616) than the width (p < 0.001, ηP2 = 0.398). Significant lower DOC (t test) was measured peripheral compared to center in all materials. YHU was more sensitive to the varied parameters as HV. DOCscratch test varied among 2.4 mm (SF2, 3-mm offset, exposure distance 7 mm) and 3.9 mm (FO, center, 0 mm).
Whether opacity competes with DOC is material dependent. BF-RBCs tolerate small variations in LCU’s centricity better than variations in exposure distance.
The upper incremental thickness threshold of 4 or 5 mm was not reached in all BF-RBCs under simulated clinically relevant curing conditions.
KeywordsBulk-fill resin composite Opacity Translucency Depth of cure Hardness Indentation modulus LCU
The work was supported by the Department of Operative/Restorative Dentistry, Periodontology and Pedodontics, Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich to 65% and by the company 3M ESPE to 35%.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 1.Margeas RC (2015) Bulk-fill materials: simplify restorations, reduce chairtime. Compend Contin Educ Dent 36:e1–e4Google Scholar
- 2.McHugh LEJ, Politi I, Al-Fodeh RS, Fleming GJP (2017) Implications of resin-based composite (RBC) restoration on cuspal deflection and microleakage score in molar teeth: placement protocol and restorative material. Dent Mater 33:e329–e335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Sampaio CS, Chiu KJ, Farrokhmanesh E, Janal M, Puppin-Rontani RM, Giannini M, Bonfante EA, Coelho PG, Hirata R (2017) Microcomputed tomography evaluation of polymerization shrinkage of class I flowable resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 42:E16–E23. https://doi.org/10.2341/15-296-l CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Ilie N, Luca BI (2018) Efficacy of modern light curing units in polymerizing peripheral zones in simulated large bulk-fill resin-composite fillings. Oper Dent. https://doi.org/10.2341/17-095-L
- 22.DIN 50359-1:1997-10 (1997) Testing of metallic materials—universal hardness test—part 1: test method Google Scholar
- 24.ISO 4049:2009 (2009) Dentistry—polymer-based restorative materialsGoogle Scholar
- 26.3M Oral Care (2016) 3M™ Filtek™ One Bulk Fill Restorative, Technical Product Profile. https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1317671O/filtek-one-bulk-fill-technical-product-profile.pdf
- 27.Joly GD, Abuelyaman AS, Fornof AR, Craig BD, Krepski LR, Moser WH, Yurt S, Oxman JD, Falsafi A (2016) Dental compositions comprising addition-fragmentation agents, United States Patent, Patent No.: US 9.414,996 B2Google Scholar