title: Comparison of Polymerization Shrinkage, Physical Properties, and Marginal Adaptation of Flowable and Restorative Bulk Fill Resin-Based Composites.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this study was to compare the marginal adaptation of two flowable bulk fill resin-based composites (FB-RBCs), two restorative bulk fill resin-based composites (RB-RBCs), and one regular incremental-fill RBC in MOD cavities in vitro. Additionally, the influence of linear polymerization shrinkage, shrinkage force, flexural modulus, and bottom/top surface hardness ratio on the marginal adaptation was evaluated.
  
  
  METHODS
  A Class II MOD cavity was prepared in 40 extracted sound lower molars. In group 1 (control group), the preparation was filled with Filtek Z350 (Z3, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) using the incremental filling technique. The FB-RBCs, SDR (SD, group 2) (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE, USA) and Venus Bulk Fill (VB, group 3) (Heraeus Kulzer, Dormagen, Germany), were placed in the core portion of the cavity first, and Z350 was filled in the remaining cavity. The RB-RBCs, Tetric N-Ceram Bulkfill (TB, group 4) (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and SonicFill (SF, Group 5) (Kerr, West Collins, Orange, CA, USA), were bulk filled into the preparation. Images of the magnified marginal area were captured under 100× magnification before and after thermomechanical loading, and the percentage ratio of the imperfect margin (%IMwhole) was calculated. Gaps, cracks in the enamel layer, and chipping of composite, enamel, or dentin were all considered to be imperfect margins. Linear polymerization shrinkage, polymerization shrinkage force, flexural strength, flexural modulus, and bottom/top surface hardness ratio of were measured. Eight specimens were allocated for each material for each test. One-way analysis of variance with the Scheffé test was used to compare the groups at a 95% confidence level.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Before thermomechanical loading, %IMwholewas in the order of group 3 ≤ groups 2 and 5 ≤ groups 1 and 4 (p=0.011), whereas after loading, it was in the order of group 4 ≤ group 5 ≤ group 1 ≤ groups 2 and 3 (p<0.001). The order of materials were Z3 < TB and SF < SD and VB (p<0.001) in polymerization shrinkage; SF ≤ TB ≤ Z3 < SD < VB (p<0.001) in polymerization shrinkage force; VB < SD < TB ≤ Z3 ≤ SF (p<0.001) in flexural modulus; SD, VB, and TB < Z3 and SF (p<0.001) in flexural strtength; and SF< Z3 < TB < VB and SD (p<0.001) in bottom/top surface hardness ratio. The Pearson correlation constant between %IMwholeand polymerization shrinkage, shrinkage force, elastic modulus, and bottom/top surface hardness ratio was 0.697, 0.708, -0.373, and 0.353, respectively, after thermomechanical loading.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Within the limitations of this study, RB-RBCs showed better marginal adaptation than FB- RBCs. The lower level of polymerization shrinkage and polymerization shrinkage stress in RB-RBCs seems to contribute to this finding because it would induce less polymerization shrinkage force at the margin. FB-RBCs with lower flexural modulus may not provide an effective buffer to occlusal stress when they are capped with regular RBCs.
authors.forename: J H
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: Jung
authors.forename: S H
authors.initials: SH
authors.lastname: Park
mesh_terms: D000180:Acrylic Resins; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry*; D018772:Dental Marginal Adaptation; D003764:Dental Materials / Q000737:chemistry*; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis; D055119:Elastic Modulus; D006245:Hardness Tests; D006801:Humans; D066298:In Vitro Techniques; D008422:Materials Testing; D008963:Molar; D058105:Polymerization; D019904:Polymethyl Methacrylate; D011140:Polyurethanes; D013499:Surface Properties
chemical_list: D000180:Acrylic Resins; D003188:Composite Resins; D003764:Dental Materials; D011140:Polyurethanes; C000613185:SonicFill; C121818:Tetric ceram; C488393:Venus (composite resin); C513703:Vivadent; C533204:filtek Z350; C035124:CMW cement; D019904:Polymethyl Methacrylate