Microleakage of Different Types of Bulk-Fill Restorative Resins
Microleakage of Different Types of Bulk-Fill Restorative Resins
# 0125
Guney, T1., Yazici, A.R.2. Hacettepe University, School of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Ankara, Turkey
Objectives The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the microleakage of different restorative resins; bulk-fill resin composite, flowable bulk-fill resin composites, fiber-reinforced resin composite and a conventional nanohybrid resin composite on both enamel and dentin substrates.
Materials and Methods 48 extracted non-caries human molars were used in the study. In each tooth, standardized Class II (slot) cavities were prepared (on mesial and distal surfaces) with one having the gingival wall below, one above the cemetoenamel junction (CEJ). After preparation the teeth were randomly assigned into four groups of twelve specimens each(n = 12). The cavities were restored with (Table 1); Group 1 Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill
Group 2 SureFil SDR Flow + Ceram-X Mono
Group 3 GC Ever X posterior + G-aenial posterior
Group 4 Filtek Supreme
The restored teeth were stored in distilled water for 24 h at 37 °C and then thermocycled (5-55°C, x1000) before immersion in 0.5 % basic fuchsin dye for 24 h. The teeth were then rinsed and sectioned mesiodistally and dye peneteration was scored under a stereomicroscope(20X)(Table 2). Data were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (p< 0.05). Dye Penetration Scores; Score 0: No dye penetration Score 1: Dye penetration less than half the length of the gingival wall Score 2: Dye penetration greater than half the length of the gingival floor but limited to 2/3rds of the gingival wall length Score 3: Dye penetration the whole length of the gingival wall up to the axial wall. Score 4: Dye penetration along the axial wall Table 2. Dye penetration scores
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
Each restorative material was used with its’respective adhesive system. Table 1. Composition of Materials Materials
Composition
Tetric Evo Ceram Bulk Fill
Acyl phosphine oxide, Camphorquinone, Dibenzoyl germanium derivative, Bis-GMA, Bis-EMA, UDMA, barium strontium silicate
(Ivoclar/Vivadent Batch #R77065)
glass, YbF3, spherical mixed oxide and prepolymers fillers
SureFil SDR Flow
Barium ve strontium alumino-fluoro-silicate glass
Ceram X Mono
Methacrylate modified polysiloxane, dimethacrylate resin, Barium-aluminium-borosilicate glass; Methacrylate
(Dentsply, Batch #1203000406)
functionalised silicon dioxide nanofillers Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, PMMA, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, glass fillers ve inorganic granular fillers
(GC Corp, Batch #1309121)
G-aenial Posterior
Methacrylate monomers, UDMA, dimethacrylate comonomers, prepolymerized fillers, camphorquinone and
(GC Corp, Batch #1211192)
amine,fluoroaluminosilicate, fumed silica
Filtek Supreme (3M ESPE, Batch #N447764)
Enamel score=0 Dentin score=2
Enamel score=0 Dentin score=3
4 1 2 1 1
Enamel score=4 Dentin score=4
EBPADMA, TEGDMA, modified dimethacrylate, dimethacrylate, Ethoxylated bisphenol A dimethacryrlate, pigment, fotoinitiator,
(Dentsply, Batch #1207205)
Ever X Posterior
0 10 7 5 10
DYE PENETRATION SCORES CEJ above CEJ below 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 0 2 0 0 6 0 2 3 3 1 0 1 4 2 1 3 3 4 0 0 5 0 5 1 0 2 0 0 6 1 3 1
Bis-GMA, UDMA, Bis-EMA, TEGDMA, Nano silica and zirconia/silica, nanoclusters
Results The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed no significant differences in microleakage scores among all groups either on enamel or on dentin(p>0.05) ( Table 2).
Conclusion None of the restorative resins tested completely eliminated microleakage. Nanohybrid resin composites and bulk-fill resins showed similar microleakage values.
# 0125
Guney, T1., Yazici, A.R.2. Hacettepe University, School of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Ankara, Turkey
Objectives The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the microleakage of different restorative resins; bulk-fill resin composite, flowable bulk-fill resin composites, fiber-reinforced resin composite and a conventional nanohybrid resin composite on both enamel and dentin substrates.
Materials and Methods 48 extracted non-caries human molars were used in the study. In each tooth, standardized Class II (slot) cavities were prepared (on mesial and distal surfaces) with one having the gingival wall below, one above the cemetoenamel junction (CEJ). After preparation the teeth were randomly assigned into four groups of twelve specimens each(n = 12). The cavities were restored with (Table 1); Group 1 Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill
Group 2 SureFil SDR Flow + Ceram-X Mono
Group 3 GC Ever X posterior + G-aenial posterior
Group 4 Filtek Supreme
The restored teeth were stored in distilled water for 24 h at 37 °C and then thermocycled (5-55°C, x1000) before immersion in 0.5 % basic fuchsin dye for 24 h. The teeth were then rinsed and sectioned mesiodistally and dye peneteration was scored under a stereomicroscope(20X)(Table 2). Data were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (p< 0.05). Dye Penetration Scores; Score 0: No dye penetration Score 1: Dye penetration less than half the length of the gingival wall Score 2: Dye penetration greater than half the length of the gingival floor but limited to 2/3rds of the gingival wall length Score 3: Dye penetration the whole length of the gingival wall up to the axial wall. Score 4: Dye penetration along the axial wall Table 2. Dye penetration scores
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
Each restorative material was used with its’respective adhesive system. Table 1. Composition of Materials Materials
Composition
Tetric Evo Ceram Bulk Fill
Acyl phosphine oxide, Camphorquinone, Dibenzoyl germanium derivative, Bis-GMA, Bis-EMA, UDMA, barium strontium silicate
(Ivoclar/Vivadent Batch #R77065)
glass, YbF3, spherical mixed oxide and prepolymers fillers
SureFil SDR Flow
Barium ve strontium alumino-fluoro-silicate glass
Ceram X Mono
Methacrylate modified polysiloxane, dimethacrylate resin, Barium-aluminium-borosilicate glass; Methacrylate
(Dentsply, Batch #1203000406)
functionalised silicon dioxide nanofillers Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, PMMA, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, glass fillers ve inorganic granular fillers
(GC Corp, Batch #1309121)
G-aenial Posterior
Methacrylate monomers, UDMA, dimethacrylate comonomers, prepolymerized fillers, camphorquinone and
(GC Corp, Batch #1211192)
amine,fluoroaluminosilicate, fumed silica
Filtek Supreme (3M ESPE, Batch #N447764)
Enamel score=0 Dentin score=2
Enamel score=0 Dentin score=3
4 1 2 1 1
Enamel score=4 Dentin score=4
EBPADMA, TEGDMA, modified dimethacrylate, dimethacrylate, Ethoxylated bisphenol A dimethacryrlate, pigment, fotoinitiator,
(Dentsply, Batch #1207205)
Ever X Posterior
0 10 7 5 10
DYE PENETRATION SCORES CEJ above CEJ below 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 0 2 0 0 6 0 2 3 3 1 0 1 4 2 1 3 3 4 0 0 5 0 5 1 0 2 0 0 6 1 3 1
Bis-GMA, UDMA, Bis-EMA, TEGDMA, Nano silica and zirconia/silica, nanoclusters
Results The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed no significant differences in microleakage scores among all groups either on enamel or on dentin(p>0.05) ( Table 2).
Conclusion None of the restorative resins tested completely eliminated microleakage. Nanohybrid resin composites and bulk-fill resins showed similar microleakage values.
