OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to quantify the internal void volume formation in commercially available, resin composites inserted using conventional or sonic insertion methods, and analyzed using three-dimensional (3D) micro-computed tomography (μCT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Four resin composites were evaluated: one conventional (Herculite, Ultra, Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA), one flowable bulk fill (SureFil SDR Flow, Dentsply International, York, PA, USA), and two packable bulk fill (SonicFill, Kerr Corporation, and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, Ivoclar Vivadent Inc, Schaan, Liechtenstein). Eight groups were evaluated according to each resin composite type and insertion method (conventional or sonic; n=5). Forty ABS 3D-printed cylindrical molds, 5.0 mm in diameter and 4.0 mm in depth, were fabricated. For the conventional resin composite, the mold was filled incrementally (two layers), while for bulk-fill resin composites, insertion was performed in a single increment. The sonic insertion method was performed using a specific handpiece (SonicFill Handpiece, Kerr Corporation). Resin composites were light cured using a multipeak light-emitting diode light-curing unit (VALO, Ultradent Products Inc, South Jordan, UT, USA) in its regular mode. Samples were evaluated by μCT, and data were imported into software (Amira, version 5.5.2, VSG, Burlington, MA, USA) for 3D reconstruction, from which the percentage of void volume was calculated. Data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc test at a preset alpha of 0.05. RESULTS: The conventional insertion method resulted in reduced porosity, compared with sonic insertion, for SureFil SDR Flow and Tetric EvoCeram bulk fill. The sonic insertion method did not demonstrate any influence on void formation for Herculite Ultra or SonicFill. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that the sonic insertion method might increase void formation during resin composite delivery, depending on restorative material brand.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to quantify the internal void volume formation in commercially available, resin composites inserted using conventional or sonic insertion methods, and analyzed using three-dimensional (3D) micro-computed tomography (μCT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Four resin composites were evaluated: one conventional (Herculite, Ultra, Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA), one flowable bulk fill (SureFil SDR Flow, Dentsply International, York, PA, USA), and two packable bulk fill (SonicFill, Kerr Corporation, and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, Ivoclar Vivadent Inc, Schaan, Liechtenstein). Eight groups were evaluated according to each resin composite type and insertion method (conventional or sonic; n=5). Forty ABS 3D-printed cylindrical molds, 5.0 mm in diameter and 4.0 mm in depth, were fabricated. For the conventional resin composite, the mold was filled incrementally (two layers), while for bulk-fill resin composites, insertion was performed in a single increment. The sonic insertion method was performed using a specific handpiece (SonicFill Handpiece, Kerr Corporation). Resin composites were light cured using a multipeak light-emitting diode light-curing unit (VALO, Ultradent Products Inc, South Jordan, UT, USA) in its regular mode. Samples were evaluated by μCT, and data were imported into software (Amira, version 5.5.2, VSG, Burlington, MA, USA) for 3D reconstruction, from which the percentage of void volume was calculated. Data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc test at a preset alpha of 0.05. RESULTS: The conventional insertion method resulted in reduced porosity, compared with sonic insertion, for SureFil SDR Flow and Tetric EvoCeram bulk fill. The sonic insertion method did not demonstrate any influence on void formation for Herculite Ultra or SonicFill. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that the sonic insertion method might increase void formation during resin composite delivery, depending on restorative material brand.