Marginal integrity of flowable and packable bulk fill materials used for class II restorations —A systematic review and meta-analysis of <i>in vitro</i> studies

Abstract

This systematic review evaluates the marginal integrity of flowable and packable bulk fill composite materials placed in class II cavities. Electronic databases inclusive of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched without restriction to date. The titles and abstracts of publications gathered from database searches were screened by reviewers according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. From as initial yield of 142 articles ten studies were subject to qualitative analysis. The authors emphasized that marginal integrity in enamel and dentin does not significantly differ between flowable and packable bulk fill composites used for class II restorations. Moreover, their marginal integrity was comparable to conventional resin composites with incremental techniques. The adhesive system used with a total etch technique and assessed margin located in enamel resulted in better marginal integrity.

Probing the hierarchy of evidence to identify the best strategy for placing class II dental composite restorations using current materials

“…In vitro : One systematic review assessed in vitro studies of the marginal integrity of different placement methods for class II composites 75 . The authors ultimately included an evaluation of 10 studies (out of 142 possible) that fulfilled the selection criteria.…”

“…74 In vitro: One systematic review assessed in vitro studies of the marginal integrity of different placement methods for class II composites. 75 The authors ultimately included an evaluation of 10 studies (out of 142 possible) that fulfilled the selection criteria. These studies employed scanning electron microscopy (considered by the authors to be the gold standard) to assess marginal adaptation for flowable and packable bulk-fill composites placed in class II cavity preparations.…”

“…Likewise, there are only a few in vitro studies assessing marginal adaptation, and they do not show a definitive benefit of the method. As presented in the systematic review, 75 there are many studies assessing leakage, but these too show great variation. It is possible that differences might be due to the fact that certain materials may be more responsive to the heating than others.…”

Margin Integrity of Bulk-Fill Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth

“…However, in contrast to the findings of the present research, flowable bulk-fill materials also attained similar margin integrities in permanent teeth as conventional, incrementally applied composites [ 17 , 18 ]. Furthermore, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in enamel and dentin margin integrity between flowable and sculptable bulk-fill composites used for Class II restorations in the permanent dentition [ 60 ]. Other than in the aforementioned studies, in the present investigation, the flowable bulk-fill composites were not capped with a conventional hybrid resin composite in accordance with the manufacturers’ indications for the restoration of primary teeth.…”

Effect of Surface Treatment and Storage Time on Immediate Repair Bond Strength Durability of Methacrylate- and Ormocer-Based Bulk Fill Resin Composites

“…In this regard, simplified adhesives [2], flowable [3] and regular viscosity bulk fill resin composites [4] have been launched in the market to decrease the clinical procedural steps and accordingly shorten the restoration time. Flowable and regular viscosity bulk fill resin composites can frequently be used to restore class II cavities, as they showed equivalent marginal quality compared to conventional ones [5].…”