IADR Abstract Archives
Placing Characteristics of Bulk-Fill Composite Resins: in-Vitro Study
Objectives: Many studies have been conducted regarding the longevity and mechanical properties of the final dental restorations, while there is almost no data considering the effect of the restoration's placement technique. This is the 1st of two studies that their objectives were to analyze the influence of placement technique on the final restoration properties.
The aim of this study was to determine the characteristics of bulk-fill restorative materials placing technique in different quadrants of the oral cavity.
Methods: Four practitioners, with more than 15 years of experience (each) have placed a total of 160 dental composite samples into cylindrical Teflon molds. The molds that were manufactured to represent a Class I carious lesion, were placed in a special oral cavity mannequin. A pressure sensor placed under the mold in 4 locations of molar teeth: right and left on both jaws. Each practitioner placed 40 samples of 2 Bulk-Fill materials, 20 by Filtek bulk fill (3M-ESPE) and 20 by Tetric EvoCeram (Ivoclar-Vivident). Force (in N) vs. time were acquired during placement. A Mixed Model Analysis was used for statistical analysis.
Results: The force-time diagrams showed characteristic pattern with peaks loads. Less time was needed for placement in the mandible compared to the maxilla and on the left side compared to the right side (p=0.029). The mean force, the number of peaks and mean peak loads exerted during placement on the left side were smaller than right one (p=0.01, p=0.021, p=0.03, respectively).
Conclusions: Restoration materials placement technique is different between practitioners: most of the procedures were characterized by peak loads during placement.
Preparing restorations in the mandible, especially on the right side, are less time consuming compared to those in maxilla probably due to ergonomic aspects
The aim of this study was to determine the characteristics of bulk-fill restorative materials placing technique in different quadrants of the oral cavity.
Methods: Four practitioners, with more than 15 years of experience (each) have placed a total of 160 dental composite samples into cylindrical Teflon molds. The molds that were manufactured to represent a Class I carious lesion, were placed in a special oral cavity mannequin. A pressure sensor placed under the mold in 4 locations of molar teeth: right and left on both jaws. Each practitioner placed 40 samples of 2 Bulk-Fill materials, 20 by Filtek bulk fill (3M-ESPE) and 20 by Tetric EvoCeram (Ivoclar-Vivident). Force (in N) vs. time were acquired during placement. A Mixed Model Analysis was used for statistical analysis.
Results: The force-time diagrams showed characteristic pattern with peaks loads. Less time was needed for placement in the mandible compared to the maxilla and on the left side compared to the right side (p=0.029). The mean force, the number of peaks and mean peak loads exerted during placement on the left side were smaller than right one (p=0.01, p=0.021, p=0.03, respectively).
Conclusions: Restoration materials placement technique is different between practitioners: most of the procedures were characterized by peak loads during placement.
Preparing restorations in the mandible, especially on the right side, are less time consuming compared to those in maxilla probably due to ergonomic aspects