Bonding of Bulk Fill versus Contemporary Resin Composites: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Akah, Mai; Daifalla, Lamia E.; Yousry, Mai Mahmoud

doi:10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i20/90525

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There was no significant difference between Tetric N-Ceram and Tetric Evo Ceram bulk fill regarding marginal integrity. The findings of the current study came in coincidence with the study carried out by van Dijken and Pallesen and the study carried out by Akah et al, Bayraktar et al [32,33] . demonstrated that all tested materials under examination in their study (Clearfil Photo Posterior, Filtek Bulk-Fill Flowable and Filtek P60, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk-Fill, and SonicFill) showed satisfactory marginal integrity after twelve months clinical follow up.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Two Years Clinical Evaluation of a Bulk Fill Composite Resin Compared With a Nanohybride Incremental Fill Composite Resin in Class Ιι Cavities

Attia

2018

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to determine the two years clinical performance of a bulk fill composite and conventional nanohybride incremental fill composite in class II cavities. Materials and methods:A total of 60 class Π cavities were restored with either bulk fill material (Tetric EvoCeram bulk fill) and self-etch adhesive (AdheSE adhesive) or an incremental resin composite (Tetric N-Ceram Nano-hybrid) and self-etch adhesive (AdheSE adhesive). In group Ι: The restorative material Tetric EvoCeram Bulk-Fill was applied in one bulk. In group Π: Tetric N-Ceram Nano-hybrid was applied using an incremental filling technique starting at the gingival wall. All restorations were clinically evaluated at periods of 1 week (initial recall), after six months, after one year, after eighteen months and at the end of two years. Assessment was done according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Data were statistically analyzed using Friedman test and Fisher's exact at P<0.05 level of significance. Results:There was no significant difference between group Ι and group Π regarding all tested criteria at different follow up periods; where P > 0.05. Conclusion:Bulk fill composite (Tetric EvoCeram bulk fill) and incremental fill composite resin (Tetric N-Ceram Nano-hybrid) exhibited comparable acceptable clinical performance after two years of evaluation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Two Years Clinical Evaluation of a Bulk Fill Composite Resin Compared With a Nanohybride Incremental Fill Composite Resin in Class Ιι Cavities

Attia

2018

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the literature, in addition to being a reliable alternative for direct posterior restorations, it has also been argued that bulk‐fill resin composite resins can achieve satisfactory bonding performance to dental hard tissues, which is one of the crucial aspects for the longevity of composite resin restorations (Akah et al, 2016; Colak et al, 2016; Mandava et al, 2017). Tsujimoto et al examined the shear bond strength of EverX Posterior, comparing it with a microhybrid composite (Clearfil AP‐X) and a nanohybrid composite (Filtek Supreme) using total‐etch, two‐step (Clearfil SE Bond), and one‐step self‐etch adhesive systems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bond strength comparison of a fiber‐reinforced composite resin: Different dentin conditions and preparation techniques

Ağaccıoğlu,

Sirin Karaarslan,

Aytac Bal

et al. 2024

Microscopy Res & Technique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to compare the bond strength of a fiber‐reinforced composite resin with traditional and bulk‐fill composite resins under different dentin conditions and preparation techniques. Eighty molar teeth, excluding the mesio‐distal half of the occlusal dentin surfaces of each teeth, were isolated with acid‐resistant nail varnish and stored in a demineralisation solution (pH 4.5). After mechanical removal of the varnish, the teeth were buried in acrylic resin blocks. In every composite resin group, one‐half of the specimens were prepared with a diamond bur and another half with Er: YAG laser. Then, the specimens were divided into four groups of composite resins (Filtek Z250, G‐aenial Posterior, SonicFill 2, Ever X Posterior) (n = 10). Shear bond strengths were measured using a universal testing device, and failure types were determined with stereomicroscope images. SEM images were obtained at 1000× magnification. Data were analyzed using a three‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons (p = .05). Differences in the dentin surface affected the bond strength results (p < .05), whereas there was no significant difference between cavity preparation methods (p > .05). EverX Posterior showed the highest bond strength results. Within the limitations of this study, fiber‐reinforced composite resin exhibited successful bond strength results in addition to improved mechanical properties.Research highlights Fiber‐reinforced composite had successful bond strength values. Bond strength values of sound dentin groups were higher than those of caries‐affected dentin groups. The use of an Er: YAG laser for preparation did not lead to insufficient bond strength results.

show abstract

“…Since their introduction, Bulk-fill resin composites have gained widespread popularity due to their simplifying packing technique (18) , decreasing chair side time besides their improved curing properties, reduction of cuspal deflection (19,20) , and better control of polymerization shrinkage stresses as this was proved by the meta-analysis and systematic review by Akah et al in 2017 (21) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using of stress-relieving monomers and fillers beside reactive photo-initiators in the Bulkfill composites permit for modulation of the polymerization reaction. Furthermore, technique sensitivity has been reduced due to filling the cavity in a single layer which in turn reduces void incorporation and any contamination possibility between composite layers entailing to more lasting restorations (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) One of the main drawbacks of resin composite restorations is the polymerization shrinkage and its sequale manifested by cuspal displacement, cracked cusps, enamel fracture, adhesive failure interface and micro-cracking of the restoration (Giachetti et al in 2006) (2,27,28,29) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of preheating of bulk-fill resin dental composite on polymerization shrinkage strain

Abdelaziz,

abdou

2023

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This in-vitro study was designed to investigate the effect of preheating two bulkfill resin composites on the polymerization shrinkage strain. Materials and Methods:A total of 22 resin-based composite discs were prepared and divided into two equal groups: a thermo-viscous one (VisCalor Bulk) and a high viscosity resin-based composite (X-tra fil). For VisCalor composite resin specimens a VisCalor Dispenser (VOCO, Cuxhaven, Germany) was used for pre-heating of the composite specimens to be injected into a Teflon mold. A Teflon mold with dimensions 7×4×4mm was fabricated to produce the standardized resin composite specimens. The reason for selecting a Teflon frame was to prevent adhering of the resin composite to the frame and so allowing its free shrinkage. A foil electrical resistance strain gauge was used to measure the polymerization shrinkage strain of the resin composite specimens. Analyzing the results was conducted using SPSS version 20, set at Significance level p≤0.05. Then, data was recorded, tabulated, and statistically analyzed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests.Results: X-tra fil group has a significantly higher value (-1130.16 ± 237.56) in comparison to VisCalor group (-616.13 ± 114.75). The difference between the groups was (514.02 ± 12.17) and was statistically significant (p = 0.000). Conclusion:Preheating of VisCalor bulk-fill resin composite to 65˚C has a superior effect to a degree on decreasing the polymerization shrinkage strain than the high viscosity bulk-fill resin composite.

show abstract

Bonding of Bulk Fill versus Contemporary Resin Composites: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Cited by 5 publications

References 36 publications

Two Years Clinical Evaluation of a Bulk Fill Composite Resin Compared With a Nanohybride Incremental Fill Composite Resin in Class Ιι Cavities

Two Years Clinical Evaluation of a Bulk Fill Composite Resin Compared With a Nanohybride Incremental Fill Composite Resin in Class Ιι Cavities

Bond strength comparison of a fiber‐reinforced composite resin: Different dentin conditions and preparation techniques

Effect of preheating of bulk-fill resin dental composite on polymerization shrinkage strain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About