OBJECTIVES: To investigate a bulk-fill flowable base composite (Surefil SDR Flow) in terms of cuspal flexure and cure when used in incremental or bulk techniques. METHODS: Mesio-occluso-distal cavities (4 mm deep, 4 mm wide) were prepared in 24 extracted molars. The slot-shaped cavities were etched, bonded, and restored in 1) two 2-mm increments Esthet-X HD (control), 2) two 2-mm increments Surefil SDR Flow, or 3) 4-mm bulk Surefil SDR Flow (N=8). The teeth were digitized after preparation (baseline) and restoration and were precisely aligned to calculate cuspal flexure. Restored teeth were placed in fuchsin dye for 16 hours to determine occlusal bond integrity from dye penetration. Extent of cure was assessed by hardness at 0.5-mm increments through the restoration depth. Results were analyzed with analysis of variance and Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc tests (α=0.05). RESULTS: Surefil SDR Flow, either incrementally or bulk filled, demonstrated significantly less cuspal flexure than Esthet-X HD. Dye penetration was less than 3% of cavity wall height and was not statistically different among groups. The hardness of Surefil SDR Flow did not change throughout the depth for both incrementally and bulk filled restorations; the hardness of Esthet-X HD was statistically significantly lower at the bottom of each increment than at the top. CONCLUSIONS: Filling in bulk or increments made no significant difference in marginal bond quality or cuspal flexure for the bulk-fill composite. However, the bulk-fill composite caused less cuspal flexure than the incrementally placed conventional composite. The bulk-fill composite cured all the way through (4 mm), whereas the conventional composite had lower cure at the bottom of each increment.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate a bulk-fill flowable base composite (Surefil SDR Flow) in terms of cuspal flexure and cure when used in incremental or bulk techniques. METHODS: Mesio-occluso-distal cavities (4 mm deep, 4 mm wide) were prepared in 24 extracted molars. The slot-shaped cavities were etched, bonded, and restored in 1) two 2-mm increments Esthet-X HD (control), 2) two 2-mm increments Surefil SDR Flow, or 3) 4-mm bulk Surefil SDR Flow (N=8). The teeth were digitized after preparation (baseline) and restoration and were precisely aligned to calculate cuspal flexure. Restored teeth were placed in fuchsin dye for 16 hours to determine occlusal bond integrity from dye penetration. Extent of cure was assessed by hardness at 0.5-mm increments through the restoration depth. Results were analyzed with analysis of variance and Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc tests (α=0.05). RESULTS: Surefil SDR Flow, either incrementally or bulk filled, demonstrated significantly less cuspal flexure than Esthet-X HD. Dye penetration was less than 3% of cavity wall height and was not statistically different among groups. The hardness of Surefil SDR Flow did not change throughout the depth for both incrementally and bulk filled restorations; the hardness of Esthet-X HD was statistically significantly lower at the bottom of each increment than at the top. CONCLUSIONS: Filling in bulk or increments made no significant difference in marginal bond quality or cuspal flexure for the bulk-fill composite. However, the bulk-fill composite caused less cuspal flexure than the incrementally placed conventional composite. The bulk-fill composite cured all the way through (4 mm), whereas the conventional composite had lower cure at the bottom of each increment.