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.

Relation between internal adaptation and degree of conversion of short-fiber reinforced resin composites applied in bulk or layered technique in deep MOD cavities

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

Influence of Curing Mode and Layering Technique on the 3D Interfacial Gap of Bulk-fill Resin Composites in Deep Class-I Restorations: A Micro-CT Volumetric Study

Fracture resistance and marginal gap formation of post-core restorations: influence of different fiber-reinforced composites

Crack propensity of different direct restorative procedures in deep MOD cavities

The Effect of Bulk Depth and Irradiation Time on the Surface Hardness and Degree of Cure of Bulk-Fill Composites

Three-Dimensional Internal Voids and Marginal Adaptation in Deep Margin Elevation Technique: Efficiency of Highly Filled Flowable Composites

Physico-mechanical characteristics of commercially available bulk-fill 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

Incremental Filling Technique and Composite Material—Part I: Cuspal Deformation, Bond Strength, and Physical Properties

Evaluation of fracture behavior in short fiber-reinforced direct and indirect overlay restorations

[Superficial and Internal Adaptations of a New Self-Curing Composite Resin Restored Class Ⅴ Cavity].

Evaluation of Microvoid and Microleakage Potential of Bulk-Fill Resin Composites in MOD Restorations

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

Comparison of Class II Bulk-Fill, Self-Adhesive Composites, Alkasite, and High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Restorations in Terms of Marginal and Internal Adaptation

Fatigue behavior of endodontically treated premolars restored with different fiber-reinforced designs

Dentin adhesion of bulk-fill composites and universal adhesives in class I-cavities with high C-factor

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

Degree of Conversion and Polymerization Shrinkage of Bulk-Fill Resin-Based Composites.

Polymerization and shrinkage kinetics and fracture toughness of bulk-fill resin-composites