Assessment of internal porosities for different placement techniques of bulk-fill resin-based composites: a micro-computed tomography study.

Autor: Al-Zain AO; Restorative Dentistry Department, King Abdulaziz University Faculty of Dentistry, P.O. Box 80209, 21589, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. alzain@kau.edu.sa.; Advanced Technology Dental Research Laboratory, King Abdulaziz University, P.O. Box 80209, 21589, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. alzain@kau.edu.sa., Baeesa L; Orthodontics Department, King Abdulaziz University Faculty of Dentistry, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia., Jassoma E; Department of Restorative Dentistry, Rutgers School of Dental Medicine, Newark, NJ, USA., Alghilan MA; Restorative and Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Ministry of National Gaurd Health Affairs, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.; King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia., Hariri M; Restorative Dentistry Department, King Fahad General Hospital, 23325, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia., Ismail EH; Department of Clinical Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, 11671, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia., Münchow EA; Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande Do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Clinical oral investigations [Clin Oral Investig] 2023 Dec; Vol. 27 (12), pp. 7489-7499. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Nov 16.
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05337-z
Abstrakt: Objectives: The aim was to compare the porosity of different bulk-fill resin-based composites (RBCs) placement techniques to the conventional incremental technique using microcomputed tomography (μ-CT).
Material and Methods: Occlusal cavities were prepared on extracted human molars, divided into five groups based on the placement technique (n = 10/group). Techniques examined were Monoblock-two-step (SureFil SDR flow + Ceram.X), Monoblock-two-step (Tetric EvoFlow Bulk-Fill + Tetric EvoCeram Bulk-Fill), Monoblock-one-step (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk-Fill), Monoblock with sonic activation (SonicFill2), and incremental technique (Filtek Z250). μ-CT scanning (SkyScan, Bruker, Belgium) assessed the number, volume of closed pores, and total porosity. Analysis of variance on ranks was used (Student-Newman-Keuls method and Mann-Whitney rank-sum test), to determine the significance of RBC viscosity and the sonication placement technique. The Spearman correlation method assessed the correlation between porosity characteristics (α = 0.05).
Results: The SonicFill2 presented a higher number of closed pores than the other groups (p < 0.05). The overall porosity within the restoration seemed greater in this order: Filtek Z250 > SonicFill2 > Tetric EvoFlow Bulk-Fill + Tetric EvoCeram Bulk-Fill > Tetric EvoCeram Bulk-Fill > SureFil SDR Flow + Ceram.X. Sonication was associated with increased number (p = 0.005) and volume (p = 0.036) of closed pores. A strong correlation was observed between the number and volume of closed pores (R 2  = 0.549, p < 001).
Conclusions: The monoblock technique with sonic activation showed significantly more internal porosity than the other placement techniques. Sonication during application contributed to the higher number and volume of closed pores than the passive bulk-fill application.
Clinical Relevance: Using bulk-fill materials enhances efficiency, yet void formation remains an issue, depending on viscosity and active/passive delivery of materials. Clinicians must familiarize themselves with effective placement techniques to reduce void formation and optimizing treatment outcomes.
(© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: