IADR Abstract Archives
Comparison of DOC and Hardness in Composite Bulk Fill Products
Objectives: To evaluate and compare the depth of cure (DOC) and hardness of five commercially available bulk-fill composite materials.
Methods: Five bulk-fill composite materials were tested: Aura Bulk Fill, SDI(ABF), Filtek™ Bulk Fill Posterior, 3M ESPE(FBF), Surefil® SDR Flow, Denstply(SDR), Tetric EvoCeram® Bulk Fill, Ivoclar(TBF), and SonicFill™, Kerr(SBF). Cylindrical samples of each material were created using a plastic mold (diameter=5mm) and light cured using the SDI Radii Plus for 40s on the top-side only. Samples were made to depths of 2mm, 3mm, 4mm, 5mm, and 6mm for each material. Top (T) and bottom (B) sample surfaces were buffed with a 5μ and 1μ microfinishing film. All samples were stored in a dark dry environment at 37OC for 24 hours before testing. A Buehler Hardness tester was used to evaluate each of the samples on both the top and bottom surfaces at five random sites (load = 300g). The thickness at which the ratio of hardness (B/T) becomes <80% is deemed the DOC. A one-way ANOVA test was used to determine statistical significance.
Results: See Table 1 and 2. At thickness ≤5mm, all products had a DOC of at least 80%. At 6mm all products had a DOC <80%. SBF was the hardest material (average T hardness=82.03HV0.3) followed by FBF (65.75HV0.3), TBF (54.25HV0.3), ABF (53.04HV0.3), and SDR (36.46HV0.3).
Conclusions: DOC of all products was greater than 80% up to a 5mm depth, indicating that these products are cured to a clinically acceptable degree up to 5mm in depth. ABF and FBF may have a DOC closer to 6mm as their DOC at the 6mm depth was 78.7% and 78.1%, respectively. Variations may be due to the differences in composition of each of the materials; however, other factors (e.g. opacity, photo-initiators, light, and examiner error) may have contributed to the outcome. Further experimentation is recommended.
Methods: Five bulk-fill composite materials were tested: Aura Bulk Fill, SDI(ABF), Filtek™ Bulk Fill Posterior, 3M ESPE(FBF), Surefil® SDR Flow, Denstply(SDR), Tetric EvoCeram® Bulk Fill, Ivoclar(TBF), and SonicFill™, Kerr(SBF). Cylindrical samples of each material were created using a plastic mold (diameter=5mm) and light cured using the SDI Radii Plus for 40s on the top-side only. Samples were made to depths of 2mm, 3mm, 4mm, 5mm, and 6mm for each material. Top (T) and bottom (B) sample surfaces were buffed with a 5μ and 1μ microfinishing film. All samples were stored in a dark dry environment at 37OC for 24 hours before testing. A Buehler Hardness tester was used to evaluate each of the samples on both the top and bottom surfaces at five random sites (load = 300g). The thickness at which the ratio of hardness (B/T) becomes <80% is deemed the DOC. A one-way ANOVA test was used to determine statistical significance.
Results: See Table 1 and 2. At thickness ≤5mm, all products had a DOC of at least 80%. At 6mm all products had a DOC <80%. SBF was the hardest material (average T hardness=82.03HV0.3) followed by FBF (65.75HV0.3), TBF (54.25HV0.3), ABF (53.04HV0.3), and SDR (36.46HV0.3).
Conclusions: DOC of all products was greater than 80% up to a 5mm depth, indicating that these products are cured to a clinically acceptable degree up to 5mm in depth. ABF and FBF may have a DOC closer to 6mm as their DOC at the 6mm depth was 78.7% and 78.1%, respectively. Variations may be due to the differences in composition of each of the materials; however, other factors (e.g. opacity, photo-initiators, light, and examiner error) may have contributed to the outcome. Further experimentation is recommended.
IMAGES
2408557_File000000.jpg
2408557_File000001.jpg
2408557_File000000.jpg
2408557_File000001.jpg