Evaluation of Bond Strength, Nanoleakage, and Marginal Adaptation of Bulk-fill Composites Submitted to Thermomechanical Aging

Effect of Polywave and Monowave Light Curing Units on the Microtensile Bond Strength and Failure Types of Different Bulk-Fill Resin Composites: An in vitro Study

Aim

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of polywave and monowave light-emitting diode curing units on the microtensile bond strength and failure types of three bulk-fill resin composites.

Materials and Methods

This in vitro experimental study was performed on 180 microbars obtained from human third molars and were distributed into 12 groups according to the type of bulk-fill resin composite and the light-curing unit. Third molars were restored using Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative, Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill, and Opus Bulk Fill resin composites was light-cured with Elipar Deep Cure L and Valo in three modes: standard, high power, and extra power. Subsequently, microtensile analysis was carried out with a universal testing machine and the type of failure with an optical stereomicroscope. For statistical analysis, the Kruskal-Wallis H-test was used, with the Bonferroni post hoc test and Fisher's exact test, considering a significance of p<0.05.

Results

There were significant differences in the microtensile bond strength between the Filtek One Bulk Fill restorative and Opus Bulk-Fill (p = 0.042) when light was cured with the polywave unit at standard power. On the other hand, the Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative and Opus Bulk Fill resins showed significant differences in microtensile bond strength when light was cured with the monowave unit compared with the polywave unit (p<0.05).

Conclusion

The presence of alternative photoinitiator systems that are more reactive than camphorquinone produced higher microtensile bond strength in Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill and Opus Bulk Fill resins when light-cured with a high and standard polywave unit, respectively, compared to Filtek One Bulk Fill resins. Finally, Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill and Opus Bulk Fill resins had the highest percentage of mixed failures, while Filtek One Bulk Fill resin had adhesive failures, which was related to its lower microtensile bond strength.

Comparative Evaluation of Bulk-Fill Composite Resins: Knoop Microhardness, Diametral Tensile Strength and Degree of Conversion

Purpose

Bulk-fill composite resins were developed to reduce time and facilitate the restorative procedure. However, considering their recent introduction on the market and the new formulations, their performance still requires evaluation. This study aimed to evaluate Knoop microhardness (KHN), diametral tensile strength (DTS) and degree of conversion (DC) of three Bulk-Fill composite resins and a conventional one.

Materials and Methods

Sixty samples (n = 15; 8 mm ø x 4 mm height) were confectioned using a mold. Filtek Bulk-Fill (FBF), Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-Fill (TNC) and SonicFill 2 (SF2) were placed in 4 mm increments, and Filtek Z350 (FZ350) was placed in 2 mm increments. The KHN of top and bottom surfaces were tested using Knoop Hardness tester at 10 gf/10s. The DTS was tested under compressive load at 1.0 mm/min. The DC was measured by Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. Differences in DTS and DC were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test. For KHN, Kruskal–Wallis and Wilcoxon tests were performed at α = 0.05.

Results

Top surfaces of all composite resins had higher KHN than bottom surfaces. At top and bottom surfaces, FZ350 showed higher KHN than TNC and SF2. The highest DTS was obtained by FBF, followed by FZ350 and SF2. The highest DC was obtained by SF2, the lowest one was obtained by FBF.

Conclusion

From Bulk-Fill composite resins, FBF presented the best KHN and DTS results. The SF2 showed the best DC. Further studies are required to ensure whether these differences can negatively influence the behavior of in vivo restorations.

Bonding States of In Vitro Class 2 Direct Resin Composite Restoration Applied by Various Incremental Techniques

Incremental techniques are always required for clinical cases of deep and/or large cavities restored with resin composite materials. The purpose of this study was to examine the bonding states of class 2 direct resin composite restoration applied by various incremental techniques after cyclic loading to simulate the intra-oral environment to define the appropriate technique. Three types of resin composites, namely, bulk-fill (B), flowable (F), and conventional resin composite (C), were applied to standardized class 2 cavities by incremental techniques with single- or bi-resin restoratives. After cyclic loading, the micro-tensile bond strength (μ-TBS) of the dentin cavity floor was measured. The Weibull modulus and Weibull stress values at 10%/90% probability of failure were analyzed. Single-resin incremental restorations with B or F and bi-resin incremental restorations with F + B and F + C demonstrated superior μ-TBS (quantitative ability), bonding reliability, and durability (qualitative ability) compared with the single-resin restoration with C (as control). Furthermore, F + B and F + C restoration yielded an excellent performance compared with the single-resin restorations with B, F, and C. In particular, the F + C restoration, which indicates not only the maximum mean µ-TBS, but also the highest values of the Weibull parameters, may be the optimal restoration method, including the esthetic benefits.