Abstract:Recent advances in dental resin based restorative materials have given rise to development of composites for bulk placement, to replace the need for incremental layering. Clinical consequences of microleakage are secondary caries, pulp inflammation, marginal discoloration, postoperative sensitivity, and the longevity of filling. Surface hardness is one of the mechanical properties of the restoration that should always be taken into account, particularly when they are faced with large areas of heavy masticatory forces. Accordingly, the current study was conducted to investigate the effect of packing technique and curing time on the marginal sealing and surface hardness of two bulk fill resin composites.Standardized class II proximal box cavities were prepared on the mesial and distal surface of the selected premolar teeth with the total of 48 cavities. The prepared cavities were randomly divided into 2 main groups, 24 cavities each, according to the placement technique used for cavity restoration either placement of bulkfill single increment of 4 mm depth or incremental placement of two increments of 2 mm each. Each group was subdivided into 2 subgroups, 12 cavities each, according to the bulk fill composite resin used; X-trafil bulkfill composite and Quixfil bulkfill composite. These subgroups were then subdivided into two smaller groups, 6 cavities each, according to the curing times either curing for 10 seconds following the manufacturers’ instructions or curing for 20 seconds. For all specimens, after bonding procedures, bulk-fill resin composites were manipulated and applied in cavities as the previously assigned methodology, specimens were then immersed in 2% methylene blue dye for 24 hours. Teeth were sectioned and viewed under a binocular stereomicroscope. Readings were recorded.A total of 80 cylindrical resin composite specimens were prepared. samples were divided into 4 groups according to the type of bulk fill composite (X-tra fil or Quixfil) and irradiation time (10s or 20s). The resin composite was applied in the mold, covered with mylar strips and light cured using LED light curing unit with an intensity of 1200mW/cm2. Vickers Microhardness tester was used with microindentation carried out using a load of 500g. Three readings for each surface were taken and an average reading was calculated. X-trafil bulkfill composite showed significantly lower degree of leakage than Quixfil bulkfill composite. No significant difference in microleakage was shown between different curing times nor different application techniques. X-trafil bulkfill composite showed significantly higher microhardness than Quixfil bulkfill composite Curing for 10 seconds showed significantly higher microhardness. Bulk-fill single increment of 4 mm recorded significantly higher microhardness value. Within the limitations of the current study, we can conclude that 4-mm bulk fill packing of bulkfill composite resin, cured for 10 seconds, had adequate marginal sealing performance. Surface microhardness of bulkfill composite resin packed at 4-mm bulk fill, cured for 10 seconds, is acceptable.

Performance of low shrinkage Bis-EFMA based bulk-fill dental resin composites

Low shrinkage bulk-filled dental resin composites with non-estrogenic dimethacrylate

The Effect of Inorganic Filler Content on the Properties of BPA-Free Bulk-Fill Dental Resin Composites

Physico-mechanical characteristics of commercially available bulk-fill composites

Mechanical Properties of Bulk-Fill Resin Composites with Single Increment Up to 4 Mm: A Novel Mechanical Strength Test

Synthesis of none Bisphenol A structure dimethacrylate monomer and characterization for dental composite applications

Comparison of mechanical properties of a new fiber reinforced composite and bulk filling composites

Monomer conversion, microhardness, internal marginal adaptation, and shrinkage stress of bulk-fill resin composites

The mechanical, wear, antibacterial properties and biocompatibility of injectable restorative materials under wet challenge

Characterization of Contemporary Conventional, Bulk-fill, and Self-adhesive Resin Composite Materials

Shrinkage stress and elastic modulus assessment of bulk-fill composites

Characterization of dental light-curing resin composites incorporating multiple modified low-shrink monomers

Comparison of Bulk Polymeric Resin Composite and Hybrid Glass Ionomer Cement in Adhesive Class I Dental Restorations: A 3D Finite Element Analysis

Mechanical and Antimicrobial Properties of Boron Nitride/Methacrylic Acid Quaternary Ammonium Composites Reinforced Dental Flowable Resins

Effect of packing technique and curing time on the marginal sealing and surface hardness of two bulk-fill resin composites

Evaluation of Two Resin Composites Having Different Matrix Compositions

Evaluation of surface microhardness and gingival marginal adaptation of three different bulk‐fill flowable resin composites: A comparative study

Clinical evaluation of bulk-fill and universal nanocomposites in class II cavities: Five-year results of a randomized clinical split-mouth trial

Comparative Assessments of Dental Resin Composites: A Focus on Dense Microhybrid Materials

Improved performance of Bis-GMA/TEGDMA dental composites by net-like structures formed from SiO2 nanofiber fillers

The use of different adhesive filling material and mass combinations to restore class II cavities under loading and shrinkage effects: a 3D-FEA