Comparison Depth of Cure of Different Viscosities Bulk Fill Composite Materials

Background: Sufficient curing of resin composites considered is very important for good clinical success. An insufficient curing affects composite properties. The aim of this study was to compare the depth of cure of different viscosities bulk fill composites materials. Materials and methods: eight bulk fill composite materials used in this study. These materials divided in eight groups of ten samples for each group. These groups were: group I Alert, group II Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior, group III Tetric N Ceram bulk fill, group IV Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill , group V QuiXfil, group VI SonicFil, group VII Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable, group VIII SureFil SDR. Depth of cure was determined by ISO4049 method. Results: Statistical analysis done and QuiXfil (5.25) showed with highest mean value and the lowest mean value was seen at group I Alert (2.51). There were high significant and significant differences between all tested groups and there were non significant difference between group II (Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior) and group IV (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill).Conclusion: This study showed that all tested groups showed different depth of cure values and these results affected by composition, viscosity, filler contents and translucency of the bulk fill materials.

[1]  D. Watts,et al.  Post-cure depth of cure of bulk fill dental resin-composites. , 2014, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[2]  O. Abouelatta,et al.  Depth of Cure and Microhardness of Nanofilled, Packable and Hybrid Dental Composite Resins , 2013 .

[3]  R. Hickel,et al.  Investigations on a methacrylate-based flowable composite based on the SDR™ technology. , 2011, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[4]  J. Stansbury,et al.  Relationships between conversion, temperature and optical properties during composite photopolymerization. , 2010, Acta biomaterialia.

[5]  E. Hellwig,et al.  Evaluation of the curing depth of two translucent composite materials using a halogen and two LED curing units , 2008, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[6]  R. Verbeeck,et al.  Relative curing degree of polyacid-modified and conventional resin composites determined by surface Knoop hardness. , 2006, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[7]  Kazuomi Suzuki,et al.  Effect of delayed polishing periods on interfacial gap formation of Class V restorations. , 2003, Operative dentistry.

[8]  A. Shortall,et al.  Effect of exposure intensity and post-cure temperature storage on hardness of contemporary photo-activated composites. , 2001, Journal of dentistry.

[9]  R. Hickel,et al.  The suitability of packable resin-based composites for posterior restorations. , 2001, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[10]  H S Cardash,et al.  A survey of output intensity and potential for depth of cure among light-curing units in clinical use. , 1999, Journal of dentistry.

[11]  E. Swift,et al.  Effects of curing tip distance on light intensity and composite resin microhardness. , 1993, Quintessence international.

[12]  H. Cardash,et al.  Post-irradiation polymerization of different anterior and posterior visible light-activated resin composites. , 1992, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[13]  L. Richards,et al.  Finite Element Stress Analysis of Composite Polymerisation Shrinkage in Endodontically Treated Maxillary Central Incisors , 2007 .

[14]  A. Yap,et al.  Effectiveness of composite cure with pulse activation and soft-start polymerization. , 2002, Operative dentistry.