IADR Abstract Archives
Translucency, curing efficiency and hardness of bulk-fill composites
Method: Four groups (n=6/group) of six composites, namely Tetric EvoCeram Bulk (‘TEC Bulk’; Ivoclar-Vivadent), SonicFill (Kerr), SDR (Dentsply), Xenius base (Stick-Tech), Filtek Bulk Fill (3M ESPE) and Tetric EvoCeram (‘TEC control’; Ivoclar-Vivadent), were prepared in standardized moulds following four application protocols:
Group I: 2-mm layered-filled, each of the two layers cured for 10s;
Group II: 4-mm bulk-filled, cured for 10s;
Group III: 4-mm bulk-filled, cured for 20s;
Group IV : 6-mm bulk-filled, cured for 20s.
Curing was done using the polywave LED light-curing unit Bluephase 20i (Ivoclar-Vivadent). Following dry storage for 24h (37°C), TP was measured using a spectrophotometer against a black and white background, while DC and Ha were measured using FTIR and Vickers-hardness testing (VHN), respectively. DoC was calculated following ISO/DIS 4049 with residual thickness measured following specimen shaking in acetone. The data were analyzed using two-way and one-way ANOVA, and Tukey’s post-test (α=0.05).
Result: DC and Ha ranged between 40-70% and 30-80 VHN, respectively. SDR had the highest DC but lowest Ha, and SonicFill had the highest Ha in Groups I-III (p<0.05). TEC Bulk, Xenius and SonicFill showed bottom-to-top Ha-ratio’s below 80% in Group II and above 80% in Group III.
Table 1. Mean (SD) of translucency parameter and depth of cure.
COMPOSITE |
TP |
DoC (mm) |
Xenius |
36.6(2.0)A |
5.09(0.01)1 |
Filtek |
26.7(0.8)B |
5.08(0.04)1 |
SDR |
22.0(0.8)C |
5.11(0.06)1 |
TEC Bulk |
21.6(0.9)C |
4.74(0.07)2 |
TEC control |
17.7(0.9)D |
3.44(0.05)3 |
SonicFill |
14.6(0.3)E |
3.77(0.10)4 |
Same superscripts indicate no statistically significant differences (p>0.05).
Conclusion: DoC of SonicFill was below 4 mm which is the manufacturer’s recommended layer thickness. DC and Ha depended on material, sample thickness and curing time. No material could be recommended for 6-mm bulk-filling.