Marcos Gabriel Vianna-de-Pinho1, Guilherme Ferreira Rego2, Marina Lermenn Vidal2, Roberta Caroline Bruschi Alonso3, Luis Felipe Jochims Schneider4, Larissa Maria Cavalcante5. 1. School of Dentistry, Salgado de Oliveira University (UNIVERSO) Niteroi, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; School of Dentistry, Federal Fluminense University (UFF), Niteroi, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 2. School of Dentistry, Federal Fluminense University (UFF) Niteroi, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 3. School of Dentistry, Universidade Metropolitana de Santos (UNIMES), Santos, Sao Paulo, Brazil; Technological Research Center, School of Dentistry, Universidade de Mogi das Cruzes (UMC), Mogi das Cruzes, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 4. Nucleus for Dental Biomaterials Research, Veiga de Almeida University (UVA), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; School of Dentistry Federal Fluminense University (UFF), Niteroi, Rio de Janeiro Brazil. 5. School of Dentistry, Federal Fluminense University (UFF) Niteroi, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Nucleus for Dental Biomaterials Research, Veiga de Almeida University (UVA), Rio de Janeiro Brazil; School of Dentistry, Salgado de Oliveira University (UNIVERSO), Niteroi, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Phone: +552126299803, e-mail: lara_cavalcante@yahoo.com.br.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the restorative time required and the internal adaptation after thermomechanical aging of class I restorations using either the conventional incremental technique or bulk-fill technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cavities (Class I) were prepared on the occlusal surface of human third molars. 40 teeth were divided into four experimental groups according to the restorative technique (n = 10): G1 = 3 mm increment of Surefill SDR Flow + 1 mm Filtek P60; G2 = 3 mm increment of Filtek Bulk-Fill + 1 mm Filtek P60; G3 = Filtek P60 inserted with incremental technique; G4 = 3 mm increment of Filtek Z350 Flow XT + 1 mm increment of Filtek P60. The required restorative clinical time for each technique was marked. Specimens were submitted to thermomechanical loading (20,000 mechanical cycles-80 N/thermal cycling-5/55°C for 30 seconds). After, samples were sectioned, ratio of internal gaps to interface length (%) was recorded using dye-staining-gap technique. Data were submitted to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test (95% significance). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in gap formation and none of the groups was completely gap-free. However, a significant reduction on required restorative clinical time was observed for G1 (167 ± 7 seconds), G2 (169 ± 4 seconds), and G4 (169 ± 8 seconds) when compared with G3 (204 ± 8 seconds). CONCLUSION: No significant difference in gap formation was found among bulk-fill and conventional incremental restorative technique tested; however, the use of a bulk-fill composite reduced 20% of the required restorative clinical time. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: None of the restorative techniques applied were able to prevent internal gap formation. The use of bulk-fill composite reduced the required clinical time to perform class I restorations.
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the restorative time required and the internal adaptation after thermomechanical aging of class I restorations using either the conventional incremental technique or bulk-fill technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cavities (Class I) were prepared on the occlusal surface of human third molars. 40 teeth were divided into four experimental groups according to the restorative technique (n = 10): G1 = 3 mm increment of Surefill SDR Flow + 1 mm Filtek P60; G2 = 3 mm increment of Filtek Bulk-Fill + 1 mm Filtek P60; G3 = Filtek P60 inserted with incremental technique; G4 = 3 mm increment of Filtek Z350 Flow XT + 1 mm increment of Filtek P60. The required restorative clinical time for each technique was marked. Specimens were submitted to thermomechanical loading (20,000 mechanical cycles-80 N/thermal cycling-5/55°C for 30 seconds). After, samples were sectioned, ratio of internal gaps to interface length (%) was recorded using dye-staining-gap technique. Data were submitted to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test (95% significance). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in gap formation and none of the groups was completely gap-free. However, a significant reduction on required restorative clinical time was observed for G1 (167 ± 7 seconds), G2 (169 ± 4 seconds), and G4 (169 ± 8 seconds) when compared with G3 (204 ± 8 seconds). CONCLUSION: No significant difference in gap formation was found among bulk-fill and conventional incremental restorative technique tested; however, the use of a bulk-fill composite reduced 20% of the required restorative clinical time. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: None of the restorative techniques applied were able to prevent internal gap formation. The use of bulk-fill composite reduced the required clinical time to perform class I restorations.