IADR Abstract Archives
Cuspal Deflection of Premolars Restored With Bulk-fill Composite Restoratives
Objectives: The aim of this in-vitro study was to compare cuspal deflection of premolars restored with 3 types of bulk-fill resin composites to that of incrementally-restored ones with low-shrinkage silorane-based resin composite.
Methods: Standardized MOD cavities, 3mm wide bucco-lingually and 3.5mm deep, were prepared in forty intact human maxillary second premolars. Prepared teeth were then equally-divided into 4 groups (n=10), each assigned to one of four restorative systems (QuiXX-Dentsply, X-tra fil-Voco, Tetric EvoCeram bulk fill-Ivoclar-Vivadent, low-shrinkage Filtek-LS-3M/ESPE). Median points near cavo-surface margins of buccal and palatal cusp tips were acid-etched and composite rods horizontally-bonded to them (TPH-Spectra-HV, Dentsply) as reference points. A digital micrometer was used for measuring distance between 2 reference points before restoration and 5 minutes after water storage. Adper single-bond+ was used with all bulk-fill restoratives. Cuspal deflection was calculated in μm as difference between two readings of micrometer, before and after restoration. Means and SDs were calculated and data statistically-analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s tests.
Results: Filtek LS showed lowest mean cuspal deflection of 6.4(0.84)μm followed by Tetric EvoCeram bulk-fill, 10.1(1.2)μm then Xtra fil, 12.4(1.35)μm, while Quixx showed highest mean cuspal deflection of 13(1.05)μm. ANOVA revealed significant difference among groups (p<.001). Tukey’s revealed FiltekLS to have significantly lowest mean cuspal deflection (p<.001). No Statistically-significant difference was found between mean cuspal deflection values of QuiXX and X-tra fil (P=.637).
Conclusions: Tetric EvoCeram bulk-fill had significantly lower mean cuspal deflection compared to the two other bulk-fill restoratives tested.
Methods: Standardized MOD cavities, 3mm wide bucco-lingually and 3.5mm deep, were prepared in forty intact human maxillary second premolars. Prepared teeth were then equally-divided into 4 groups (n=10), each assigned to one of four restorative systems (QuiXX-Dentsply, X-tra fil-Voco, Tetric EvoCeram bulk fill-Ivoclar-Vivadent, low-shrinkage Filtek-LS-3M/ESPE). Median points near cavo-surface margins of buccal and palatal cusp tips were acid-etched and composite rods horizontally-bonded to them (TPH-Spectra-HV, Dentsply) as reference points. A digital micrometer was used for measuring distance between 2 reference points before restoration and 5 minutes after water storage. Adper single-bond+ was used with all bulk-fill restoratives. Cuspal deflection was calculated in μm as difference between two readings of micrometer, before and after restoration. Means and SDs were calculated and data statistically-analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s tests.
Results: Filtek LS showed lowest mean cuspal deflection of 6.4(0.84)μm followed by Tetric EvoCeram bulk-fill, 10.1(1.2)μm then Xtra fil, 12.4(1.35)μm, while Quixx showed highest mean cuspal deflection of 13(1.05)μm. ANOVA revealed significant difference among groups (p<.001). Tukey’s revealed FiltekLS to have significantly lowest mean cuspal deflection (p<.001). No Statistically-significant difference was found between mean cuspal deflection values of QuiXX and X-tra fil (P=.637).
Conclusions: Tetric EvoCeram bulk-fill had significantly lower mean cuspal deflection compared to the two other bulk-fill restoratives tested.
IMAGES
2078648_File000000.jpg
2078648_File000000.jpg