Evaluation of efficiency of polymerization, surface roughness, porosity and adaptation of flowable and sculptable bulk fill composite resins

Abstract

A new category of commercial bulk fill composite resins (CRs) enables the placement of 4-mm-thick layers as an alternative to the traditional time-consuming incremental technique. The purpose of the present study was to compare the efficiency of the polymerization, adaptation and porosity of two high-viscosity ‘sculptable’ bulk fill CRs (Filtek™ Bulk Fill (3M™ ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) and Tetric EvoCeram® Bulk Fill (Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schwan, Liechtenstein)) and two low-viscosity ‘flowable’ bulk fill CRs (SureFil® SDR™ flow (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) and Tetric EvoFlow® Bulk Fill (Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein)). Cylindrical samples of the bulk fill CRs (4 mm height × 10 mm diameter) were analyzed by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and atomic force microscopy (AFM). Additionally, occlusal cavities were prepared in twelve extracted human molars and restored with the bulk fill CRs (n = 3 for each CR). The adaptation and porosity of the bulk fill CRs were evaluated by X-ray microcomputed tomography (µCT) with a 3D morphometric analysis, and the adaptation was also analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) on longitudinal vestibulo-oral sections of the restored teeth. The AFM analysis demonstrated that the surface roughness of the SureFil® SDR™ flow was higher than that of the Tetric EvoFlow® Bulk Fill and that the surface roughness of Filtek™ Bulk Fill was higher than that of Tetric EvoCeram® Bulk Fill. µCT and SEM confirmed that the flowable bulk fill CRs had excellent adaptation to the cavity walls. The 3D morphometric analysis showed the highest and lowest degrees of porosity in Filtek™ Bulk Fill and Tetric EvoFlow® Bulk Fill, respectively. In general, the flowable bulk fill CRs exhibited better adaptation, a higher efficiency of polymerization and lower porosity than the sculptable materials.