Effect of different curing modes on the Vickers hardness number and curing depth of bulk fill composites (original) (raw)
Related papers
Dental and Medical Problems, 2020
Background. Composites are in great demand due to the esthetic needs of the patients, which explains a wide variation in the types of available composites. However, the mechanical strength of the materials is questionable. Therefore, the mechanical properties of the newly available bulk-fill composites have been tested. Objectives. The main objective of the study was to compare the depth of cure (DOC) and surface roughness of 3 different bulk-fill composites: X-tra fil ® (XTF), Tetric EvoCeram ® Bulk Fill (TEC) and Beautifil ® Bulk Restorative (BBR). Material and methods. Fifty-seven (n = 19 in each group) samples were made using brass molds. All samples were subjected to Vickers hardness testing and profilometry. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used for the data analysis, followed by Tukey's post hoc test. Results. The differences in the mean surface microhardness values of the materials were statistically significant (p < 0.001), with XTF showing the highest value. The TEC composite showed a higher surface roughness as compared to BBR and XTF. Conclusions. The results of the present study indicate that variations in the filler size and amount significantly influence the DOC and surface roughness of dental composites. Among the tested composites, the multi-hybrid composite exhibited superior DOC (XTF), whereas the nanohybrid composite exhibited superior surface finish (TEC).
Conservative Dentistry and Endodontic Journal
Aim and objective To evaluate and compare the depth of cure of two bulk-fill composites with a conventional composite. Materials and methods A sample size of 36 was taken and divided into three groups based on the type of composite. Standardized cylindrical stainless steel molds were prepared with 8 mm diameter and 10 mm depth. Measurement of depth of cure by the scraping method was performed according to the ISO 4049 (2009). After placing the specimens, the mold was pressed with polyester strips covered by glass slides and curing was initiated using Bluephase 20i (Ivoclar Vivadent US) light-curing unit through the glass slide. Immediately after curing, the specimens were removed from the mold and the uncured part of the specimens was removed by scraping with a plastic spatula. The absolute length of the hardened composite specimen was measured using a digital vernier caliper. The measured length was divided by two and recorded as the ISO depth of cure. Results The depth of cure of ...
International Journal of Clinical Preventive Dentistry, 2018
The aim of this study was to evaluate the microhardness and depth of cure of three high viscosity bulk fill resin composites and to compare it with a conventional composite. Methods: To evaluate depth of cure, the composite specimen was prepared using metallic mold with a hole of 4 mm depth and 4 mm internal diameter which was bulk filled with each of the three bulk fill composites (SonicFill, Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior & Beautifil Bulk Restorative) and light cured for 20 seconds. The conventional composite (Tetric N Ceram) was filled in the increments of 2-mm. The top and bottom surface hardness was measured using a Vickers microhardness indenter. The depth of cure was then calculated by dividing the bottom & top mean hardness values. Results: Sonicfill showed maximum surface microhardness followed by Beautifil Bulk restorative, Tetric N Ceram and Filtek Bulk Fill. Maximum depth of cure was seen in SonicFill followed by Filtek Bulk Fill, Tetric N Ceram and Beautifil Bulk restorative and the difference was statistically significant. SonicFill and Filtek Bulk Fill were able to achieve the minimum depth of cure value ≥0.80 at 4-mm depth. Beautiful bulk restorative composite was not able to achieve the minimum bottom to top ratio of 0.80. Conclusion: Microhardness and depth of cure is a material specific property and factors such as composition; content and size of fillers; viscosity and translucency of the material play an important role in determining the properties of the bulk fill composite.
Evaluationof Curing Depth of Bulk-Fill Resin Composite ( A comparative study )
2015
Received 4 November 2014 Accepted 1 December 2014 Abstract This study evaluated the depth of cure (DOC) of recently introduced resin composites for posterior use, bulk filled flowable composite (SureFil® SDR® flow DENTSPLY Caulk) at different depth. 30 specimens were prepared and divided into two Groups,Group 1: specimens with 2 mm depth, Group 2: specimens with 4mm depth. The composite specimens were prepared by using molds of different depth, one of them with was a hole of 4 mm depth and 4 mm internal diameter and the other was with a depth of 2 mm at the same diameter. The hole was bulk filled with SDR flowable composite resin and light cured for 20 seconds with a modern high-intensity LED curing unit (EliparTM S10, 3M.US.), followed by 24 hours storage in complete darkness incubator at 37 C. The degree of conversion was measured on the top and the bottom for both depths using Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. A bulk filled flowable (SDR)revealed a significant diffe...
Egyptian Dental Journal, 2019
Recent advances in dental resin based restorative materials have given rise to development of composites for bulk placement, to replace the need for incremental layering. Clinical consequences of microleakage are secondary caries, pulp inflammation, marginal discoloration, postoperative sensitivity, and the longevity of filling. Surface hardness is one of the mechanical properties of the restoration that should always be taken into account, particularly when they are faced with large areas of heavy masticatory forces. Accordingly, the current study was conducted to investigate the effect of packing technique and curing time on the marginal sealing and surface hardness of two bulk fill resin composites. Standardized class II proximal box cavities were prepared on the mesial and distal surface of the selected premolar teeth with the total of 48 cavities. The prepared cavities were randomly divided into 2 main groups, 24 cavities each, according to the placement technique used for cavity restoration either placement of bulkfill single increment of 4 mm depth or incremental placement of two increments of 2 mm each. Each group was subdivided into 2 subgroups, 12 cavities each, according to the bulk fill composite resin used; X-trafil bulkfill composite and Quixfil bulkfill composite. These subgroups were then subdivided into two smaller groups, 6 cavities each, according to the curing times either curing for 10 seconds following the manufacturers' instructions or curing for 20 seconds. For all specimens, after bonding procedures, bulk-fill resin composites were manipulated and applied in cavities as the previously assigned methodology, specimens were then immersed in 2% methylene blue dye for 24 hours. Teeth were sectioned and viewed under a binocular stereomicroscope. Readings were recorded. A total of 80 cylindrical resin composite specimens were prepared. samples were divided into 4 groups according to the type of bulk fill composite (X-tra fil or Quixfil) and irradiation time (10s or 20s). The resin composite was applied in the mold, covered with mylar strips and light cured using LED light curing unit with an intensity of 1200mW/cm2. Vickers Microhardness tester was used with microindentation carried out using a load of 500g. Three readings for each surface were taken and an average reading was calculated.
Bulk fill composites in dentistry- A review
IP innovative publication pvt. ltd, 2019
Resin based composite is the most accepted material for the restoration of decayed tooth. To improve the composite material in physical, clinical, as well as to facilitate manipulation technique various modifications have been done in its structure. Polymerization shrinkage stress, being its major drawback which affects the core of the filling and its bonding with tooth structure. This polymerization shrinkage would lead to numerous clinical consequences such as poor marginal adaptation, resulting into microleakage, development of secondary caries and subsequent pulpal inflammation. Another drawback being reduction in degree of conversion which affects the physical properties and increases the monomer proportion, which could lead to post operative sensitivity and early failure of composite filling. Bulk fill composite is recently introduced as an advancement in resin based restoration which claims to overcome the drawback of conventional composite. Therefore the review of this literature could be a helpful for dentists to use these new promising restorative materials with long term clinical outcome. Keywords: Bulk fill composite, Depth of cure, Degree of conversion, Surface hardness.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the bond strength, bottom/top hardness ratio, marginal adaptation, and interfacial nanoleakage of regular viscosity bulk fill composites (RVBFC) and regular viscosity traditional composites (RVTC). Two RVBFC (Filtek Bulk Fill and Aura Bulk Fill) and two RVTC (Filtek Z250XT and Aura) were assessed. Forty conical cavities (4.8×2.8×4.0) were prepared in bovine dentin and restored with composites (n=10). After 24h in water, marginal adaptation was evaluated by staining with a caries detector. The top and bottom surfaces of the conical restorations were stained for five seconds and the gap percentage in the composite/dentin interface was determined using digital images on a measurement program (ImageTool). The Vickers microhardness was measured and the bottom/top microhardness ratio (B/T) was determined. Push-out bond strength test was performed in a universal testing machine (0.5mm/min) and failure modes were evaluated in a stereomicroscope (20×). Other specimens (n=3) were produced for interfacial nanoleakage evaluation. Data were analyzed using one and two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). The gap percentage was higher in the bottom compared to the top. The B/T ratio of the Aura Bulk Fill was statistically lower than other composites. Push-out bond strength were similar among composites. The RVBFC presented lower nanoleakage than the RVTC in the bottom of the conical restoration and there was no difference among the materials in the top surfaces. In conclusion, Filtek Bulk Fill performed better than Aura Bulk Fill regarding the analyzed properties.
Coatings
Dual-curing composites have a wide spectrum of use in practice (rebuilding, reconstruction, and luting). The characterization of this type of material and comparative study of selected mechanical properties with light-cured materials were carried out for this paper. In this study, we used six materials with a dual-cure system—Bulk EZ, Fill-Up!, StarFill 2B, Rebilda DC, MultiCore Flow, Activa Bioactive-Restorative—and three light-cured materials—Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior, Charisma Classic, and G-aenial Universal Flo. The materials were conditioned for 24 h in water at 37 °C before testing. Selected material properties were determined: three-point bending flexural strength, diametral tensile strength, hardness, microhardness, and shrinkage stress. The highest three-point bending flexural strength (TPB) was 137.0 MPa (G-aenial Universal Flo), while the lowest amounted to 86.5 MPa (Activa Bioactive). The diametral tensile strength (DTS) values were in a range from 39.2 MPa (Rebilda DC)...
2014
Background: This in vitro study measure and compare the effect of light curing tip distance on the depth of cure by measuring vickers microhardness value on two recently launched bulk fill resin based composites Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill and Surefil SDR Flow with 4 mm thickness in comparison to Filtek Z250 Universal Restorative with 2 mm thickness. In addition, measure and compare the bottom to top microhardness ratio with different light curing tip distances. Materials and Method: One hundred fifty composite specimens were obtained from two cylindrical plastic molds the first one for bulk fill composites (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill and Surefil SDR Flow) with 4 mm diameter and 4 mm depth, the second one for Filtek Z250 Universal Restorative with 4 mm diameter and 2 mm depth. Each spcimen was light-cured using WOODPECKER LED CURING LIGHT for 20 sec. Polymerization was performed with the light tip positioned in direct contact, 2 mm, 4 mm, 6 mm and 8 mm distant from the top surface of t...
Bulk Fill Composites Have Similar Performance to Conventional Dental Composites
International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2020
The aim of the study was to perform comprehensive characterization of two commonly used bulk fill composite materials (SDR Flow (SDR) and Filtek™ Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative (FBF) and one conventional composite material (Tetric EvoCeram; TEC). Eleven parameters were examined: flexural strength (FS), flexural modulus (FM), degree of conversion, depth of cure, polymerisation shrinkage (PS), filler particle morphology, filler mass fraction, Vickers hardness, surface roughness following simulated toothbrush abrasion, monomer elution, and cytotoxic reaction of human gingival fibroblasts, osteoblasts, and cancer cells. The degree of conversion and depth of cure were the highest for SDR, followed by FBF and TEC, but there was no difference in PS between them. FS was higher for bulk fill materials, while their FM and hardness were lower than those of TEC. Surface roughness decreased in the order TEC→SDR→FBF. Bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (BisGMA) and urethane dimethacrylate were foun...