Open AccessMarginal Sealing of Bulk Fill versus Conventional Composites in Class II Composite Restorations: An In Vitro Study
Author(s) -
Niloofar Shadman,
Bahareh Pezeshki,
Setare Rostami
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
frontiers in dentistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2676-296X
DOI - 10.18502/fid.v17i40.5313
Subject(s) - cementoenamel junction , materials science , stereo microscope , dentistry , composite number , composite material , significant difference , gingival margin , statistical analysis , orthodontics , mathematics , molar , medicine , statistics
Objectives: Bulk fill composites are preferred to conventional composites with time-consuming incremental application technique, given that they have good mechanical properties and low microleakage. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the dentinal marginal microleakage of bulk fill (in two viscosities) and conventional composites in class II cavities in maxillary premolars.
Materials and Methods: In this in vitro studyˏ 42 class II cavities were prepared in the mesial and distal surfaces of 21 maxillary premolars extending 1 mm below the cementoenamel junction, and restored with Grandio composite with 2-mm increments, and X-tra fil and X-tra base with 4-mm increments. After 24 h of storage at 37oC and 100% humidity, they were thermocycled (500 cyclesˏ 5-55oC), stored in basic fuchsine, sectioned, and evaluated under a stereomicroscope (×40). The microleakage scores of the gingival margin were recorded. Statistical analysis was done by SPSS 21 via the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests at P≤0.05 level of significance.
Results: No statistically significant differences were noted among the groups in marginal microleakage (P=0.47). No statistically significant difference was noted between bulk and incremental application techniques in this respect either (P=0.23).
Conclusion: There was no difference in marginal microleakage between the bulk fill and conventional composites.