MARGINAL ADAPTATION OF SELF ADHESIVE (SUREFIL ONE) AND CONVENTIONAL BULKFILL COMPOSITES: AN-IN VITRO STUDY

MARYAM FAKHER  IBRAHIM; BAHAR JAAFAR  SELIVANY

doi:10.26682/sjuod.2023.26.1.10

MARYAM FAKHER IBRAHIM College of Dentistry, University of Duhok, Kurdistan Region –Iraq
BAHAR JAAFAR SELIVANY College of Dentistry, University of Duhok, Kurdistan Region –Iraq

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26682/sjuod.2023.26.1.10

Keywords: Bulk fill, Self-adhesive, Microleakage, Adaptability

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate adaptability of self-adhesive Surefil one and two conventional bulkfill composites Beautifil bulk restorative and Filtek one bulk fill restorative.

Materials and Methods: A total of sixty non carious extracted human premolars were selected for this study. Standardized proximal class ll cavity preparations were prepared on distal side and the samples were divided randomly into 3 equal groups (n=20) according to composite used, GI: Beautifil bulk restorative, GII: Filtek One Bulk fill restorative, GIII: Surefil one self-adhesive. All samples were exposed to thermal cycles and were sectioned longitudinally, then were sheltered with gold spray and analyzed on Scanning electron microscope for assessment of marginal adaptation.

Results: Filtek one bulkfill restorative showed excellent adaptation with the walls of the cavity followed by Beautifil bulk and Surefil one self-adhesive. Furthermore, gingival margin showed the highest spaceamong other margins.

Conclusion: Beautifil bulk and One bulk fill performed better results regarding marginal adaptation in all thirds of the cavity of class II cavity. Surefil one showed inferior results than others

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abdelrahman, M. H., Mahmoud, E. M., Ghoneim, M. M., & Kammar, A. A. (2016). Comparative study of spaceand shear bond strength between bulk fill and self-adhesive flowable composite resins. Alexandria Dental Journal, 41(3), 322-327.
AL-Khalidi, E. F., Ismail, S. A., & Obosi, M. M. (2012). Evaluation of Sealing Ability of New Composite Filling Material. Tikrit Journal for Dental Sciences, 1(2).
Behery, H., El-Mowafy, O., El-Badrawy, W., Nabih, S., & Saleh, B. (2018). Gingival spaceof class II bulk-fill composite resin restorations. Dental and Medical Problems, 55(4), 383-388.
Bertolo, M. V. L., Moraes, R. D. C. M., Pfeifer, C., Salgado, V. E., Correr, A. R. C., & Schneider, L. F. J. (2017). Influence of photoinitiator system on physical-chemical properties of experimental self-adhesive composites. Brazilian dental journal, 28, 35-39.
da Silva, E. M., Almeida, G. S., Poskus, L. T., & Guimarães, J. G. A. (2008). influence of the light-activation mode. Journal of Applied Oral Science, 16(2), 161-166.
el-Mowafy O, El-Badrawy W, Eltanty A, Abbasi K, Habib N. Gingival spaceof Class II resin composite restorations with fiber inserts. Oper Dent. 2007;32:298–305.
Eltoum, N. A., Bakry, N. S., Talaat, D. M., & Elshabrawy, S. M. (2019). Spaceevaluation of bulk-fill composite in class II restorations of primary molars. Alexandria Dental Journal, 44(1), 111-116.
Hany, S. M., Yousry, M. M., & Naguib, E. A. (2016). Evaluation of adaptation of resin composite restorations packed using ultrasonic vibration techniques: A systematic review. Ind J Sci Tech, 9, 1-9.
Klee, J. E., Renn, C., & Elsner, O. (2020). Development of novel polymer technology for a new class of restorative dental materials. J. Adhes. Dent, 22, 35-45.
Kwon Y., Ferracane J., Lee I.-B (2015). Effect of layering methods, composite type, and flowable liner on the polymerization shrinkage stress of light cured composites. Dent. Mater.;28:801–809. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.04.028
Klein CA, Jr., da Silva D, Reston EG, Borghetti DL, Zimmer R (2018). Effect of at-home and in-office bleaching on marginal spacein composite resin restorations using two adhesive systems. J Contemp Dent Pract.;19:248–252.
Latta, M. A., Tsujimoto, A., Takamizawa, T., & Barkmeier, W. W. (2020). Enamel and dentin bond durability of self-adhesive restorative materials. J. Adhes. Dent, 22(1), 99-105.
Moosavi, H., Yazdi, F. M., Moghadam, F. V., & Soltani, S. (2013). Comparison of resin composite restorations microleakage: An in-vitro study.
Mjör IA (1998). The location of clinically diagnosed secondary caries. Quintessence Int;29:313 7.
Nayyer, M., Zahid, S., Hassan, S. H., Mian, S. A., Mehmood, S., Khan, H. A., ... & Khan, A. S. (2018). Comparative abrasive wear resistance and surface analysis of dental resin-based materials. European Journal of Dentistry, 12(01), 057-066.
Patel, M. C., Bhatt, R. K., Makwani, D. A., Dave, L. D., & Raj, V. S. (2018). Comparative evaluation of marginal seal integrity of three bulk-fill composite materials in Class II cavities: An in vitro study. Advances in Human Biology, 8(3), 201.
Rathke, A., Pfefferkorn, F., McGuire, M. K., Heard, R. H., & Seemann, R. (2022). One-year clinical results of restorations using a novel self-adhesive resin-based bulk-fill restorative. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 1-9.
Rossomando KJ, Wendt SL Jr(1995). Thermocycling and dwell times in spaceevaluation for bonded restorations. Dent Mater;11:47 51.
Sidhu, S. K., & Nicholson, J. W. (2016). A review of glass-ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. Journal of functional biomaterials, 7(3), 16.
Spencer, P., Ye, Q., Park, J., Topp, E. M., Misra, A., Marangos, O., ... & Katz, J. L. (2010). Adhesive/dentin interface: the weak link in the composite restoration. Annals of biomedical engineering, 38(6), 1989-2003.
van Dijken, J. W., & Pallesen, U. (2017). Bulk‐filled posterior resin restorations based on stress‐decreasing resin technology: a randomized, controlled 6‐year evaluation. European Journal of Oral Sciences, 125(4), 303-309.
van Dijken, J. W., Pallesen, U., & Benetti, A. (2019). A randomized controlled evaluation of posterior resin restorations of an altered resin modified glass-ionomer cement with claimed bioactivity. Dental Materials, 35(2), 335-343.
Yantcheva, S. M. (2021). Marginal Adaptation and Micropermeability of Class II Cavities Restored with Three Different Types of Resin Composites—A Comparative Ten-Month In Vitro Study. Polymers, 13(10), 1660.
Yantcheva, S., & Vasileva, R. (2016). Sorption and solubility of low-shrinkage resin-based dental composites. Journal of IMAB–Annual Proceeding Scientific Papers, 22(2), 1114-1119.
Yao, C., Ahmed, M. H., Zhang, F., Mercelis, B., Van Landuyt, K. L., Huang, C., & Van Meerbeek, B. (2020). Structural/chemical characterization and bond strength of a new self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative. Journal Of Adhesive Dentistry, 22(1), 85-97.
Yazici, A. R., Kutuk, Z. B., Ergin, E., Karahan, S., & Antonson, S. A. (2022). Six-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill and nanofill resin composite restorations. Clinical Oral Investigations, 26(1), 417-426.
Zhao X., Li S., Gu L., Li Y (2014). Detection of marginal spaceof class v restorations in vitro by micro–computed tomography. Oper. Dent. ;39:174–180. doi: 10.2341/12-182-L