6533b7ddfe1ef96bd127513e
RESEARCH PRODUCT
<i>In vitro</i> evaluation of microleakage in Class II composite restorations: High-viscosity bulk-fill <i>vs</i> conventional composites
Carmen Llena PuyLaura García MaríArantxa Climent Gilsubject
MolarMaterials scienceEnamel paint0206 medical engineeringComposite numberSignificant differenceBulk fill compositeBulk fill030206 dentistry02 engineering and technology020601 biomedical engineering03 medical and health sciences0302 clinical medicinemedicine.anatomical_structurestomatognathic systemvisual_artCeramics and CompositesDentinmedicinevisual_art.visual_art_mediumComposite materialGeneral DentistryGingival margindescription
This study compared marginal microleakage of Class II cavities restored with bulk-fill resin (Filtek™ Bulk Fill) and conventional composite resin (Filtek™ Supreme XTE). Two standardized Class II cavities were prepared in forty extracted human molars. The gingival margin was located above the cemento-enamel junction for twenty molars (groups 1 and 2) and apically for the other twenty (groups 3 and 4) (n=20). The occlusomesial cavity was filled with bulk-fill resin by insertion in bulk (groups 1 and 3) and the occlusodistal cavity was restored with conventional composite using incremental technique (groups 2 and 4). The teeth were thermocycled (500 cycles 5-55°C), stained and observed under light microscope. The microleakage was significantly lower in gingival margins located in enamel compared with dentin margins (p<0.01). There was no statistically significant difference between groups 1 and 2 (p=0.86) and groups 3 and 4 (p=0.26). Bulk-Fill resins presents gingival microleakage similar to conventional composites.
| year | journal | country | edition | language |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-09-27 | Dental Materials Journal |