In vitro evaluation of polymerization energy for bulk fill composites

Abstract

Recently, the concept of “bulk-fill” resin-based composites (RBCs) has been re-emphasized, with claimed improvements in depth of cure (DOC) with similar mechanical properties and comparable adaptation to walls and margins relative to conventional composite. More research is needed to carefully examine the properties of these new materials. The objective of this study was to measure the light energy, microhardness (VHN), and elastic modulus across the depth of one conventional and three bulk-fill RBCs. Materials and Methods: Three commercially available bulk-fill RBCs (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill [TE], SonicFill [SF], X-tra fill[XF]) and one conventional RBC (Premise [PR]) were evaluated (n = 10). DOC (using Vickers’s microhardness), elastic modulus (using atomic force microscopy), and the mean irradiance and total light energy transmitted through different thicknesses of RBC were measured by a spectrometer. The effects of group, location, and curing depth on VHN were analyzed using mixed-model ANOVA. Elastic modulus and light energy comparisons were made using two-way ANOVA, with a significance level of 5 percent. Results: There was a significant difference in the depths for the mean irradiance and total energy between different depths in all materials. All materials achieved the manufacturers’ claimed DOC. XF had the highest DOC with 7 mm and a light energy of 0.56± 0.02 J/cm2 at 7 mm. PR had the lowest DOC with 3 mm and a light energy of 0.84 ±0.12 J/cm2 at 3 mm. The elastic modulus showed significant variation in depth profiles that were different than the DOC. Significance: The manufacturers’ claims for bulk-fill DOC were achieved using a microhardness method. However, this method failed to detect the quality of the polymerization. Assessment of the elastic modulus using AFM is a promising method for greater understanding of the polymerization.