English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of conventional, sonic or pre-heating insertion techniques on internal void formation of bulk-fill composites with micro-computed tomography. Standardized cylindrical cavities were prepared in 160 human third molars. Four groups received different paste-like bulk-fill composites: SonicFill 2 (SF2); VisCalor Bulk (VCB); Filtek One Bulk-fill restorative (FBF); Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TEB); and a conventional posterior composite, Clearfil Majesty Posterior (CMP). A hybrid CAD/CAM block was selected as a control (n=10). Composite restorations were built according to each resin composite type and insertion technique (n=10). Micro-CT was used to assess internal void rates. Data was analyzed with two-way ANOVA and Tukey's multiple comparisons test (α=0.05). CAD/CAM blocks were free of voids. For each composite, the highest void rates were observed for the sonic delivery method (p&lt;0.05) except for SF2. SF2 was not affected by insertion techniques (p&gt;0.05). Other composites showed the lowest void rates with pre-heating technique.

Micro-computed tomographic evaluation of the effects of pre-heating and sonic delivery on the internal void formation of bulk-fill composites