Adaptation of Resin-based Composites in Class II Restorations

Objectives: To compare adaptation to the cavity walls of composites using various methods of application and material types.
Methods: Seventy-nine dentists were asked to fill four class II MO cavities with 5mm proximal box depths in heated typodont heads. Four bulk fill composites and three incrementally layered universal composites were placed from their respective capsule delivery systems. Each dentist placed four of the pastes which were randomly selected. Four placement methods were used according the IFUs and delivery systems.
Bulk fill using a 3M Experimental Bulk Fill (EXP-BF) and Filtek™ Bulk Fill Posterior (FBFP) delivered via a hand dispensed capsule in a single 5mm increment.
Bulk fill using SonicFill™ 2 (SF2) delivered via capsule dispensed from a dedicated sonication hand piece and placed in a single 5mm increment.
Bulk fill using Tetric Evo Ceram® Bulk Fill (TEC-BF) delivered via hand dispensed capsule placed in two increments due to its 4mm depth of cure.
Incremental composites using, Estelite Sigma Quick (ESQ), Tetric Evo Ceram® (TEC) and TPH Spectra® HV (TPH) delivered via hand dispensed capsule and placed in multiple layers.
Following placement, the tooth was removed from the arch, labelled and visually examined for defects along the proximal margin and between the increment. The number of restorations with defects was counted rather than the total number of defects.
Results: Results are summarized in the following table.
Conclusions: The EXP-BF using placement method I had statistically fewer defects than the other composites and placement methods using methods II, III and IV. The combination of rheological properties and delivery method should provide a system for the clinician that allows for placement of composites in a bulk fill mode with potential for fewer defects.