Interfacial Stress and Bond Strength of Bulk-Fill or Conventional Composite Resins to Dentin in Class II Restorations

Duarte, Júlio César Lemos; Costa, Ana Rosa; Veríssimo, Crisnicaw; Duarte, Renata Webster; Filho, Saturnino Calabrez; Spohr, Ana Maria; Borges, Gilberto Antônio; Correr-Sobrinho, Lourenço

doi:10.1590/0103-6440202003338

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bulk fill composite resin is still a new material on the market and is being scientifically tested 6,25,26 . As for the adhesion to dentin substrate, regardless of the adhesive used 25 and the type of cavity 27,28 , its bond strength showed high µTBS values, validating the results found in the CP group. No studies in the literature have evaluated the bond strength between bulk fill composite and Er: YAG laser-treated dentin.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Bond strength of bulk fill composite to teeth prepared with Er

Benati

Baioni

Souza

et al. 2022

Braz.j. of oral sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The present in vitro study aimed to evaluate the bond strength of a bulk fill composite on dentin surfaces prepared with the Er: YAG laser. Methods: Twenty-four permanent third molars were selected and divided into 2 groups: CP - Conventional preparation with high-speed handpiece (control) and LA (laser) - Preparation with Er: YAG laser. The occlusal surface was removed to expose coronal dentin, which was subsequently prepared with a high-speed handpiece or Er: YAG laser (350mJ, 4Hz, 1.5 ml/min water flow). Both groups were restored with Filtek One Bulk Fill (3M ESPE) composite resin. After 24 hours, the samples were evaluated for microtensile bond strength (μTBS), fracture pattern, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results: The data obtained in the μTBS test were submitted to t-test (α=0.05). The results showed no difference in μTBS when the different types of cavity preparation were compared (ρ=0.091). Fracture patterns revealed the prevalence of cohesive fracture in composite resin in CP (83.3%) and adhesive fracture in LA (92.1%). In the SEM analysis, the LA group demonstrated the presence of gaps between the composite resin and the irradiated dentin surface. The hybrid layer exhibited more regularity with the presence of longer and uniform resin tags in the CP group. Conclusion: The type of cavity preparation did not influence the values of bulk fill composite resin μTBS to dentin. Fracture patterns and scanning electron microscopy analyses suggested less interference at the adhesive interface in preparations performed using CP.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Bond strength of bulk fill composite to teeth prepared with Er

Benati

Baioni

Souza

et al. 2022

Braz.j. of oral sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, a range of previous in vitro studies as compared BF against each other and against IF for the restoration margin integrity or similar parameters. The majority of these studies did not find any significant difference in the margin integrity between BF and IF; in some cases, BF even showed higher margin integrity (this was especially the case when scalable BF, like BF-Gra, were used) [29][30][31]. Instead, the adhesive strategy has been confirmed as an important factor for margin integrity of all materials [30], in line with clinical data that were recently synthesized in a network meta-analysis [32], highlighting the relevance of the adhesive step for secondary caries risks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Secondary Caries Adjacent to Bulk or Incrementally Filled Composites Placed after Selective Excavation In Vitro

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: selective caries excavation (SE) is recommended for deep carious lesions. Bulk fill composites (BF) may be considered to restore SE-cavities. We compared the susceptibility for secondary caries adjacent to BF versus incrementally filled composites (IF) in SE and non-selectively excavated teeth (NS) in vitro. Methods: in 72 extracted human premolars, artificial caries lesions were induced on pulpo-axial walls of standardized cavities. The lesions were left (SE) or removed (NS), and teeth were restored using two BF, GrandioSO x-tra/Voco (BF-Gra) and SDR/Dentsply (BF-SDR), and an IF, GrandioSO/Voco (IF-Gra) (n = 12/group for SE and NS). After thermo-mechanical cycling (5–55 °C, 8 days), teeth were submitted to a continuous-culture Lactobacillus rhamnosus biofilm model with cyclic loading for 10 days. Mineral loss (ΔZ) of enamel surface lesions (ESL), dentin surface lesions (DSL), and dentin wall lesions (DWL) was analyzed using transversal microradiography. Results: ΔZ was the highest in DSL, followed by ESL, and it was significantly lower in DWL. There were no significant differences in ΔZ between groups in DSL, ESL, and DWL (p > 0.05). Regardless of lesion location, ΔZ did not differ between SE and NS (p > 0.05). Conclusions: BF and IF both showed low risks for DWL (i.e., true secondary caries) after SE in vitro, and surface lesion risk was also not significantly different between materials. SE did not increase secondary caries risk as compared with NS. Clinical Significance: the risk of secondary caries was low after selective excavation in this study, regardless of whether bulk or incrementally filled composites were used

show abstract

“…The conventional resin has the great disadvantage of contracting during the polymerization process because the tension of the material exceeds the bonding force due to the low percentage of inorganic load in its composition. (1)(2)(3) This phenomenon creates an internal gap that causes micro ltration between the restoration-tooth interface, generating microorganisms that are responsible for secondary carious lesions, pulp damage and failure in the restoration. (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11) Bulk ll resins are materials that have been implemented in the market to meet the needs and improve the properties of conventional resins and restoration techniques.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental restoration operative time and analysis of the internal gap caused by the microfiltration of conventional resins (incremental technique) vs. bulk fill (single-increment technique): In vitro study

Medina-Sotomayor

Ortega

Aguilar

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: An incremental technique used in restorations with conventional composite resin promises reduced shrinkage and increased working time; the preparation process consists of applying small increments of resin within a cavity while performing light curing in intervals, which can generate gaps between increments. Bulk fill resin allows the use of single-increment technique, improving operative time and facilitating the restoration. The objective of the present work was to determine the operative time and the internal restoration gap in the restoration–tooth interface in the cavity floor using an incremental technique for conventional resins and the single-increment technique for the bulk fill resin. Methods: In this in vitro experimental study, the internal gaps of the restoration–tooth interfaces in the cavity floors of two conventional resins and two bulk fill resins were microscopically analyzed, and the restoration times of the single-increment technique and the incremental technique were determined. Results: Bulk fill resins had smaller internal gap (63.31 µm) than conventional resins (333.14µm).Regarding the restoration time, the single-increment technique obtained the best results in operative time (3.52 minutes), with significant differences relative to the incremental technique. Conclusions:The Tetric N-Ceram bulk fill resin presented better performance than conventional resins relative to the internal gap of the restoration–tooth interface in the cavity floor. In addition, the single-increment technique presented a short clinical restoration time.

show abstract

Interfacial Stress and Bond Strength of Bulk-Fill or Conventional Composite Resins to Dentin in Class II Restorations

Cited by 11 publications

References 22 publications

Bond strength of bulk fill composite to teeth prepared with Er

Bond strength of bulk fill composite to teeth prepared with Er

Secondary Caries Adjacent to Bulk or Incrementally Filled Composites Placed after Selective Excavation In Vitro

Dental restoration operative time and analysis of the internal gap caused by the microfiltration of conventional resins (incremental technique) vs. bulk fill (single-increment technique): In vitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About