 |
| Title |
Traditional Composites are Comparable to Bulk Fill Composites for Strength and Effectiveness |
| Clinical Question |
Are Bulk Fill composites a stronger material compared to traditional composites? |
| Clinical Bottom Line |
Bulk Fill composites are comparable to Traditional Composites in terms of degree of conversion; however, Bulk Fill composites reported higher polymerization shrinkage when compared to Traditional Composites. |
| Best Evidence |
(you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link) |
| PubMed ID |
Author / Year |
Patient Group |
Study type
(level of evidence) |
| #1) 23845799 | Alshali/2013 | 8 resin composites | In vitro study | | Key results | This study examined the degree of conversion of 4 Bulk Fill composites (SureFil (SDR), Venus bulk-fill (VBF), x-tra base (XB) and Filtek Bulk Fill (FBF)) with that of 2 flowable (Venus Diamond Flow (VDF), Grandioso Flow (GRF)) and 2 regular composites (Venus Diamond (VD), Grandioso (GR)). This articles states that the degree of conversion has been directly related to the strength, modulus, hardness and solubility.
A) Immediate post cure degree of conversion were presented in percentages as followed:
Bulk Fill: SDR 58, VBF 56, XB 54, VBF 50; Flowables: VDF 62, GRF 77; Traditional: VD 35, VG 50.
B) 24 hour post cure degree of conversion were presented in percentages as followed:
Bulk Fill: SDR 76, VBF 79, XB 62, VBF 51; Flowables: VDF 71, GRF 93; Traditional: VD 79, VG 69. In conclusion, results showed that degree of conversion values of Bulk Fill were comparable to Traditional composites. | | #2) 22575738 | Kwon/2012 | 4 groups of 24 specimens | In vitro study | | Key results | 24 aluminum blocks were separated into 4 groups: Bulk Fill, Traditional composite (TC) incrementally filled without a liner, TC incrementally filled with a liner and silorane-based composite incrementally placed. Cuspal deflection was determined by having 15 kg weights at an interval of 200 g applied 1 mm from the cusp tip of the aluminum blocks. This study mentioned that this type of test is a good determinate of polymerization shrinkage, which would cause stress in the interface between the restoration and the tooth structure. Results reported that cuspal deflection was significantly lower in the incremental filling group compared to Bulk Fill, in the first 8 minutes. The mean values of cuspal deflection for groups 1 to 4 were 18, 15, 16 and 7 mm. In conclusion, Bulk Fill composites reported higher polymerization shrinkage when compared to incremental technique for Traditional Composites. | |
| Evidence Search |
Bulk Fill Composites, Resin Composites, Degree of Conversion, Polymerization Shrinkage |
Comments on
The Evidence |
In vitro studies were the highest level of evidence available at this time. No meta-analyses, Cochrane reviews, or clinical trials were found on this topic. The Alshali et al., 2013 study, results showed comparable degree of conversion between Bulk Fill and Traditional composites. However, Kwon et al., 2012 displayed that polymerization shrinkage was high in the Bulk Fill group, which would cause more stress at the cavosurface margin leading to possible failure at the interface between tooth structure and restoration. |
| Applicability |
General dentists need to know the effectiveness of different composite materials. Bulk Fill composites are comparable to Traditional Composites in terms of degree of conversion; however, Bulk Fill composites reported higher polymerization shrinkage when compared to Traditional Composites. |
| Specialty/Discipline |
(Public Health) (General Dentistry) (Pediatric Dentistry) (Restorative Dentistry) |
| Keywords |
bulk fill, composite, incremental filling technique, polymerization time, degree of conversion
|
| ID# |
2613 |
| Date of submission: |
02/25/2014 |
| E-mail |
davis.omido@ucdenver.edu |
| Author |
Davis Omido |
| Co-author(s) |
|
| Co-author(s) e-mail |
|
| Faculty mentor/Co-author |
Deise Oliveira, DDS |
| Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
deise.oliveira@ucdenver.edu
|
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?) |
post a rationale |
| None available | |
|
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
post a comment |
| None available | |
|
|
