Abstract
Objectives
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).
Results
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.
Conclusions
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Qvist V, Manscher E, Teglers PT (2004) Resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8-year results. J Dent 32:285–294
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 23:343–362
Ilie N, Hickel R, Valceanu AS, Huth KC (2012) Fracture toughness of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 16:489–498
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 6:79–86
Zhao J, Xie D (2011) A novel hyperbranched poly(acrylic acid) for improved resin-modified glass-ionomer restoratives. Dent Mater 27:478–486
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 17:619–626
Burgess J, Cakir D (2010) Comparative properties of low-shrinkage composite resins. Compend Contin Educ Dent 31(Spec No 2):10–15
El-Damanhoury H, Platt J (2014) Polymerization shrinkage stress kinetics and related properties of bulk-fill resin composites. Oper Dent 39:374–382
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 40:500–505
Flury S, Peutzfeldt A, Lussi A (2014) Influence of increment thickness on microhardness and dentin bond strength of bulk fill resin composites. Dent Mater 30:1104–1112
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 29:269–277
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–e251
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 43:934–954
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 8:14–21
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 26:1113–1118
Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ, Feilzer AJ, Verdonschot EH (1998) Marginal integrity and postoperative sensitivity in class 2 resin composite restorations in vivo. J Dent 26:555–562
Rahiotis C, Tzoutzas J, Kakaboura A (2004) In vitro marginal adaptation of high-viscosity resin composite restorations bonded to dentin cavities. J Adhes Dent 6:49–53
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 111:523–528
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 30:1000–1007
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 23:272–278
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 16:1–6
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 42:575–581
Furness A, Tadros MY, Looney SW, Rueggeberg FA (2014) Effect of bulk/incremental fill on internal gap formation of bulk-fill composites. J Dent 42:439–449
Sidhu SK, Sherriff M, Watson TF (1997) The effects of maturity and dehydration shrinkage on resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations. J Dent Res 76:1495–1501
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 53:325–331
Gleicher H, Fuks AB, Sela J (1998) Adaptation of class II Vitremer restorations with and without primer: a morphometric study. Pediatr Dent 20:263–266
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 40:134–143
Ferracane JL (2005) Developing a more complete understanding of stresses produced in dental composites during polymerization. Dent Mater 21:36–42
Marshall SJ, Bayne SC, Baier R, Tomsia AP, Marshall GW (2010) A review of adhesion science. Dent Mater 26:e11–e16
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 29:221–230
Leprince JG, Palin WM, Vanacker J, Sabbagh J, Devaux J, Leloup G (2014) Physico-mechanical characteristics of commercially available bulk-fill composites. J Dent 42:993–1000
Nicholson JW, Croll TP (1997) Glass-ionomer cements in restorative dentistry. Quintessence Int 28:705–714
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 31:251–256
Rossomando KJ, Wendt SL Jr (1995) Thermocycling and dwell times in microleakage evaluation for bonded restorations. Dent Mater 11:47–51
Acknowledgments
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Funding
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.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gaintantzopoulou, M.D., Gopinath, V.K. & Zinelis, S. Evaluation of cavity wall adaptation of bulk esthetic materials to restore class II cavities in primary molars. Clin Oral Invest 21, 1063–1070 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1848-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1848-6