Comparison of marginal adaptation between a monoincremental resin with sonic activation and a conventional resin.

Abstract

Aim: To determine differences in marginal adaptation between a conventional composite resin and a monoincremental resin with sonic activation. Materials and methods: 32 composite resin discs of 2.5mm in diameter and 2mm thick were fabricated in a propylene matrix and distributed in 2 groups of 16 samples each. Groups 1 Filtek TM Z350XT resin; Group 2 SonicFill TM resin with sonic activation. The gap generated between the resin and the matrix as a result of the polymerization shrinkage was analyzed in microns using a microscope at a magnification of 40X. The percentage of the lineal polymerization shrinkage was also calculated. To calculate differences in marginal adaptation between the two resins statistical analysis was performed using the unpaired t-test. Results: The extent of the gaps measured in microns and their respective standard deviations were SonicFill TM 9.95±3.05and Filtek TM Z350XT 10.21±5.14 (p=.86). Conclusion: The use of the monoincremental resin system with sonic activation shows a marginal adaptation similar to that of conventional resin composites, with no statistically significant differences between the studied resins.

Clinical performance of different bulk‐fill composite resin systems in class II cavities: A 2‐year randomized clinical trial

“…It possesses rheological modifiers in the matrix and filler, representing 83.5% of the weight and 78% of the volume. This presents a polymerization shrinkage of about 1.6% concerning volume 50 . The results of the current study are in the same vein as those of Akalin et al, 52 as they stated that the durability of SonicFill3 composite resin was clinically acceptable after 2 years of clinical follow‐up.…”

“…51 shrinkage of about 1.6% concerning volume. 50 The results of the current study are in the same vein as those of Akalin et al, 52 as they stated that the durability of SonicFill3 composite resin was clinically acceptable after 2 years of clinical follow-up.…”

“…SonicFill is a type of high‐viscosity bulk‐fill as it allows bulk placement with a specialized handpiece that delivers sonic energy at different intensities 50 . During the application of sonic energy, the incorporated modifier causes the viscosity to drop up to 87% during composite insertion 47,51 .…”

“…48,49 SonicFill is a type of high-viscosity bulk-fill as it allows bulk placement with a specialized handpiece that delivers sonic energy at different intensities. 50 During the application of sonic energy, the incorporated modifier causes the viscosity to drop up to 87% during composite insertion. 47,51 When the sonic energy is stopped, the composite returns to a more viscous density and sculpting state more suitable for carving and contouring.…”