Logo Logo
Switch Language to German
Al-Harbi, F.; Kaisarly, D.; Bader, D.; El Gezawi, M. (2016): Marginal Integrity of Bulk Versus Incremental Fill Class II Composite Restorations. In: Operative Dentistry, Vol. 41, No. 2: pp. 146-156
Full text not available from 'Open Access LMU'.


Bulk-fill composites have been introduced to facilitate the placement of deep direct resin composite restorations. This study aimed at analyzing the cervical marginal integrity of bulk-fill vs incremental and open-sandwich class II resin composite restorations after thermomechanical cycling using replica scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and ranking according to the World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria. Box-only class II cavities were prepared in 91 maxillary premolars with the gingival margin placed 1 mm above and below the cementoenamel junction. Eighty-four premolars were divided into self-etch and total-etch groups, then subdivided into six restorative subgroups (n=7): 1-Tetric Ceram HB (TC) was used incrementally and in the open-sandwich technique with 2-Tetric EvoFlow (EF) and 3-Smart Dentin Replacement (SD). Bulk-fill restoratives were 4-SonicFill (SF), 5-Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill (TN), and 6-Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TE). In subgroups 1-5, Tetric N-Bond self-etch and Tetric N-Bond total-etch adhesives were used, whereas in subgroup 6, AdheSE self-etch and ExciTE F total etch were used. One more group (n=7) was restored with Filtek P90 Low Shrink Posterior Restorative (P9) only in combination with its self-etch P90 System Adhesive. Materials were manipulated and light cured (20 seconds, 1600 mW/cm(2)), and restorations were artificially aged by thermo-occlusal load cycling. Polyvinyl-siloxane impressions were taken and poured with epoxy resin. Resin replicas were examined by SEM (200x) for marginal sealing, and percentages of perfect margins were analyzed. Moreover, samples were examined using loupes (3.5x) and explorers and categorized according to the FDI criteria. Results were statistically analyzed (SEM by Kruskal-Wallis test and FDI by chi-square test) without significant differences in either the replica SEM groups (p=0.848) or the FDI criteria groups (p>0.05). The best SEM results at the enamel margin were in TC+EF/total-etch and SF/total-etch and at the cementum margins were in SF/total-etch and TE/self-etch, while the worst were in TC/self-etch at both margins. According to FDI criteria, the best was TE/total-etch at the enamel margin, and the poorest was P9/self-etch at the cementum margin. Groups did not differ significantly, and there was a strong correlation in results between replica SEM and FDI ranking.