Clinical Time Required and Internal Adaptation in Cavities restored with Bulk-fill Composites

Abstract

Aim:The aim of this study was to compare the restorative time required and the internal adaptation after thermomechanical aging of class I restorations using either the conventional incremental technique or bulk-fill technique. Materials and methods:Cavities (Class I) were prepared on the occlusal surface of human third molars. 40 teeth were divided into four experimental groups according to the restorative technique (n = 10): G1 = 3 mm increment of Surefill SDR Flow + 1 mm Filtek P60; G2 = 3 mm increment of Filtek Bulk-Fill + 1 mm Filtek P60; G3 = Filtek P60 inserted with incremental technique; G4 = 3 mm increment of Filtek Z350 Flow XT + 1 mm increment of Filtek P60. The required restorative clinical time for each technique was marked. Specimens were submitted to thermomechanical loading (20,000 mechanical cycles-80 N/thermal cycling-5/55°C for 30 seconds). After, samples were sectioned, ratio of internal gaps to interface length (%) was recorded using Results: There was no significant difference in gap formation and none of the groups was completely gap-free. However, a significant reduction on required restorative clinical time was observed for G1 (167 ± 7 seconds), G2 (169 ± 4 seconds), and G4 (169 ± 8 seconds) when compared with G3 (204 ± 8 seconds). Conclusion:No significant difference in gap formation was found among bulk-fill and conventional incremental restorative technique tested; however, the use of a bulk-fill composite reduced 20% of the required restorative clinical time.Clinical significance: None of the restorative techniques applied were able to prevent internal gap formation. The use of bulk-fill composite reduced the required clinical time to perform class I restorations.

Clinical time and postoperative sensitivity after use of bulk-fill (syringe and capsule) vs. incremental filling composites: a randomized clinical trial

“…Although empirically, it seems logical that the restorations made with bulk-fill composite resin would be executed more rapidly, until now, there has only been in vitro evidentiary data to substantiate this conducted on standardized cavities. 9 Thus, there was no way to determine how much faster it could be to complete whole procedures, including adhesive system application, occlusal adjustment, finishing and polishing in vivo, that were not evaluated in the in vitro study 9 but were evaluated in this study and that took into consideration the need to calculate the time to perform the whole restoration.…”

“…However, in spite of its status as the most popular restorative technique, there are still problems associated with the incremental technique. Perhaps the most important of these relates to the time required to complete a larger volume restoration, as is normally the case with the posterior teeth, 9 and the potential incorporation of voids within the restoration. 10 In an effort to resolve these problems, and to continue to simplify and accelerate restorative procedures, the industry has introduced bulk-fill resins.…”