OBJECTIVES: This study investigated cuspal deformation in teeth restored with different types of adhesive materials with and without a base. METHODS: Mesio-occluso-distal slot cavities of moderately large dimension were prepared on extracted maxillary premolars (n=24). Teeth were assigned to one of four groups and restored with either a sonic-activated bulk-fill resin composite (RC) (SonicFill), or a conventional nanohybrid RC (Herculite Ultra). The base materials used were a flowable nanofilled RC (Premise Flowable) and a high-viscosity resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) (Riva Light-Cure HV). Cuspal deflection was measured with two direct current differential transformers, each contacting a buccal and palatal cusp. Cuspal movements were recorded during and after restoration placement. Data for the buccal and palatal cusp deflections were combined to give the net cuspal deflection. RESULTS: Data varied widely. All teeth experienced net inward cuspal movement. No statistically significant differences in cuspal deflection were found among the four test groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a flowable RC or an RMGIC in closed-laminate restorations produced the same degree of cuspal movement as restorations filled with only a conventional nanohybrid or bulk-fill RC.
OBJECTIVES: This study investigated cuspal deformation in teeth restored with different types of adhesive materials with and without a base. METHODS: Mesio-occluso-distal slot cavities of moderately large dimension were prepared on extracted maxillary premolars (n=24). Teeth were assigned to one of four groups and restored with either a sonic-activated bulk-fill resin composite (RC) (SonicFill), or a conventional nanohybrid RC (Herculite Ultra). The base materials used were a flowable nanofilled RC (Premise Flowable) and a high-viscosity resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) (Riva Light-Cure HV). Cuspal deflection was measured with two direct current differential transformers, each contacting a buccal and palatal cusp. Cuspal movements were recorded during and after restoration placement. Data for the buccal and palatal cusp deflections were combined to give the net cuspal deflection. RESULTS: Data varied widely. All teeth experienced net inward cuspal movement. No statistically significant differences in cuspal deflection were found among the four test groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a flowable RC or an RMGIC in closed-laminate restorations produced the same degree of cuspal movement as restorations filled with only a conventional nanohybrid or bulk-fill RC.