Dental restoration operative time and analysis of the internal gap caused by the microfiltration of conventional resins (incremental technique) vs. bulk fill (single-increment technique): In vitro study

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2723715/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Dental restoration operative time and analysis of the internal gap caused by the microfiltration of conventional resins (incremental technique) vs. bulk fill (single-increment technique): In vitro study

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2723715/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: An incremental technique used in restorations with conventional composite resin promises reduced shrinkage and increased working time; the preparation process consists of applying small increments of resin within a cavity while performing light curing in intervals, which can generate gaps between increments. Bulk fill resin allows the use of single-increment technique, improving operative time and facilitating the restoration. The objective of the present work was to determine the operative time and the internal restoration gap in the restoration–tooth interface in the cavity floor using an incremental technique for conventional resins and the single-increment technique for the bulk fill resin.

Methods: In this in vitro experimental study, the internal gaps of the restoration–tooth interfaces in the cavity floors of two conventional resins and two bulk fill resins were microscopically analyzed, and the restoration times of the single-increment technique and the incremental technique were determined.

Results: Bulk fill resins had smaller internal gap (63.31 µm) than conventional resins (333.14µm).Regarding the restoration time, the single-increment technique obtained the best results in operative time (3.52 minutes), with significant differences relative to the incremental technique.

Conclusions:The Tetric N-Ceram bulk fill resin presented better performance than conventional resins relative to the internal gap of the restoration–tooth interface in the cavity floor. In addition, the single-increment technique presented a short clinical restoration time.

Composite

microfiltration

restoration technique

Restorative dentistry is constantly evolving, as it requires materials that provide quality to this type of procedure due to the various causes that lead to failed restorations. For this reason, clinical practice is focused on restoring the integrity of the dental organ with the use of adhesive materials. Certain directives, such as composite resin, have been on the market since the 1950s and do not require the removal of healthy tissue for their retention, obtaining excellent long-term results.

The conventional resin has the great disadvantage of contracting during the polymerization process because the tension of the material exceeds the bonding force due to the low percentage of inorganic load in its composition. (1–3) This phenomenon creates an internal gap that causes microfiltration between the restoration–tooth interface, generating microorganisms that are responsible for secondary carious lesions, pulp damage and failure in the restoration. (4–11)

Bulk fill resins are materials that have been implemented in the market to meet the needs and improve the properties of conventional resins and restoration techniques. The resins are characterized by their low polymerization contraction due to their high percentage of inorganic load in their composition (quartz, zirconite or silicate) and photoinitiators with translucent characteristics that allow the passage of light into the restorations; these characteristics improve the contraction of polymerization and allow the passage of light to a great depth, improving restoration techniques. (5, 10, 12)

Due to the uncomfortable clinical process of dental restoration, it is recently a matter of minimizing the operative time of restoration through the practice of different techniques. (13) The incremental technique used in restorations with conventional composite resin promises reduced shrinkage and increased working time because it consists of applying small increments of resin within the cavity preparation accompanied by light curing at intervals, which can generate gaps between increments. (6, 13, 14) However, bulk fill resin allows the use of the single-increment technique, improving the operative time and facilitating the restoration. (6, 15)

The objective of this in vitro study is to determine the operative time and the internal restoration gap at the restoration–tooth interface in the cavity floor using the incremental technique for conventional resins and the single-increment technique for the resin.

Sample calculation and selection

In the present in vitro study, 43 molars obtained from the Dental Teaching Clinic (surgery area) of the Universidad Católica de Cuenca, Azogues were analyzed. The sample size was 10 teeth for each composite resin group; the sample size was determined prior to a pilot study.

As inclusion criteria, upper or lower third molars were used with the same Nolla stage without carious lesions, fractures, or restorations and with a complete crown. Only teeth with the possibility of fracturing or cracking were excluded during the experimental phase.

The composite resins Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FB) and Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill (TB) were analyzed for the restorations with the single-increment technique, and the Filtek Z250 XT Universal Restaurative (FZ) and Tetric N-Ceram (TC) were analyzed for the restorations with the technique. The incremental and compositional characteristics are indicated in Table 1.

Table 1

Composite descriptions, manufacturers and composition
Composite	Code	Restoration technique	Composition	Manufacturer	Shade	Lot
FILTEK Bulk Fill Posterior Restaurative	FB	Single-increment	AUDMA, UDMA and 1, 12-dodecane.-DMA. The fillers are a combination of a non-agglomerated/non-aggregated 20 nm silica filler, a non-agglomerated/non-aggregated 4 to 11 nm zirconia filler, an aggregated zirconia/silica cluster filler (comprised of 20 nm silica and 4 to 11 nm zirconia particles), and a ytterbium trifluoride filler consisting of agglomerate 100 nm particles. The inorganic filler loading is about 76.5% by weight (58.4% by volumen)	3M ESPE (Seefeld, Germany)	A2	NA98703
TETRIC N Ceram Bulk Fill	TB	Single-increment	Bis-GMA, Bis-EMA, UDMA Polymer filler 17.0% (Barium glas filler, Ytterbium triflouride) mixed oxide 61.0%. Additive, Initiators, Stabilisers, Pigments, 1.0%	Ivoclar Vivadent (Schaan, Liechtenstein)	A2	Z033TM
FILTEK Z250 XT Universal Restaurative	FZ	Incremental	BIS-GMA, UDMA, and BIS-EMA The inorganic filler loading is 60% by volume (without silane treatment) with a particle size range of 0.01 to 3.5 µm.	3M ESPE (Seefeld, Germany)	A2	NE21777
TETRIC N Ceram	TC	Incremental	BisGMA, BisEMA, UDMA. Filler content 55–57%: barium aluminium silicate glass (0.4 µm, 0.7 µm), ytterbium trifluoride (200nm), mixed oxide (160nm) Prepolymer	Ivoclar Vivadent (Schaan, Liechtenstein)	A2	Z02P5F
*AUDMA: aromatic urethane dimethacrilate, BisGMA: Bisphenol A polyethylene glicol diether dimethacrylate, BisEMA: Bisphenol A polyethylene glicol diether dimethacrilate, UDMA: Urethane dimethacrilate,

A randomization (www.random.org) of the teeth was carried out to define the technique and resin to be used, and the information was managed by one researcher.

Tooth preparation

The teeth were cleaned with a prophylactic brush and pumice stone, and the soft tissue remains were removed with a curette. The apex was sealed with glass ionomer (GC Gold Label 9, FUJI, Tokyo, Japan) and then kept in physiological serum (NaCl 0.09%) at 6°C, changing it twice a week until the experimental part began. Each tooth was placed in individual sockets to achieve stability at the time of cavity preparation and subsequent restoration.

We proceeded to make standardized class I cavity preparations of 4x4x4 mm in width, length and depth, ensuring measurements with the use of the periodontal probe. The cavity opening was made with a round bur, and the samples were prepared with a straight-tipped tapered bur using rubber stops as guides.

Cavity conditioning and restorations

The restorations were performed by a single operator (GO) controlling the operative time from the beginning of each restoration. The restorations were performed according to the specifications of each manufacturer, and a PhotoLight Max light curing lamp (Gnatus, Riberão Preto-SP, Brazil) was used with a light-emitting diode (LED) light power of 1200 mW/cm² with continuous light as follows:

For one-piece technique restorations (FB–TB), the following steps were conducted:

Acid selective conditioning the tooth structure, first conditioning the enamel and then conditioning the dentin, for 15 s with Scotchbond Universal Etchant (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany. LOT NA98703)
Washing the cavity with running water for 15 seconds and then drying the enamel while leaving the cavity/dentin wet
Placement of 2% chlorhexidine for 10 seconds and cavity drying with cotton
Adper Single Bond 2 adhesive (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany. LOT: NE63329) was applied on FB resin and N-Bond (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein. LOT: Z033TM) was applied on TB resin as the first layers for both the enamel and dentin by rubbing the dentin for 10 seconds
Unifying the first layer with air application
Placement of the second layer of adhesive and light curing for 10 seconds
Restoration with polymerization for 40 seconds

For restorations with the incremental technique (FZ–TC), the following steps were performed:

Acid selective conditioning the tooth structure, first conditioning the enamel and then conditioning the dentin, for 15 seconds with Scotchbond Universal Etchant (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany. LOT: 7601007)
Washing the cavity with running water for 15 seconds and then drying the enamel while keeping the cavity/dentin wet
Placement of 2% chlorhexidine for 10 seconds and cavity drying with cotton
Adper Single Bond 2 adhesive (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany. LOT: NE63329) was applied on FZ resin and N-Bond (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein. LOT: Z033TM) was applied on TC resin as the first layers for both the enamel and dentin by rubbing dentin for 10 seconds
Unifying the first layer with air application
Placement of the second layer of adhesive and conducting light curing for 10 seconds
Restoration curing each layer for 15 seconds and performing final curing for 40 seconds

Thermocycling, preparation and immersion of teeth in dye

Subsequently, thermocycling was carried out with 10,000 cycles, representing 1 year of use of the material in oral conditions as follows: (16) the teeth were immersed in water baths at 35°C for 28 seconds, 15°C for 2 seconds, 35°C for 28 seconds and finally 45°C for 2 seconds. This procedure was repeated 50 times for 3.5 days.

Sample sectioning and observation

The pieces were washed and sectioned mesiodistally with a handpiece and a diamond disc with constant irrigation. Finally, the teeth were immersed in 0.1% methylene blue for 48 hours. After this time, the sealing was evaluated marginally at the mesial, distal and floor levels of the cavity using a Dino-Lite Premier AM4113T 1.3MP optical microscope (Dino-Lite Digital Microscope, Taiwan) and subsequent analysis with DinoCapture 2.0 software (Dino-Lite Premier, Taiwan). This analysis was performed by a single operator blinded to the material analyzed.

Statistical analysis

For the statistical analysis, the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) v.25 program (IBM, Endicott NY, USA) was used. Descriptive data were obtained, and through Student's t test, restoration techniques and operative time were related. With the Mann‒Whitney U test, the means of the internal restoration gap were compared according to the type of resin. Significant values were established at p < 0.05.

The descriptive analysis of the time according to the restoration technique is indicated in Table 2. The single-increment technique used with the Bulk fill resins obtains an average of 3.52 minutes with significant differences relative to the incremental technique (p < 0.05) (Fig. 1).

Table 2

Restoration time according the restoration technique descriptive analysis: mean value, standard deviation, mínimum and máximum value. (µm) Statistical analysis: T test
Restoration technique	n	Mean (min)	SD	Min (min)	Max (min)	p-value*
Incremental	20	5.89*	2.03	2.13	10.15	0.000*
Single-increment	20	3.52	0.90	2.09	5.35
* p < 0,05

Figures 2 and 3 show the size of the internal gap of the restoration of the four resins considered for the present study. Table 3 shows very different behaviors between the two bulk fill resins (p < 0.05), with the TB resin having the smallest internal gap size at an average value of 63.31 µm; the FB resin have the highest value of all the resins, with an average value of 313.14 µm. The two conventional resins (FZ and TC) present very similar average values (p > 0.05).

Table 3

Dental restoration internal gap size descriptive analysis: mean value, standard deviation, mínimum and máximum value. (µm)
Composite	n	Mean (µm)	SD	Min (µm)	Max (µm)
FZ	30	166.95	145.66	0.00	617.29
TC	30	160.98	182.06	12.12	678.72
FB	30	313.14*	164.50	48.48	602.84
TB	30	63.31	57.79	0.00	280.43

**FZ: FILTEK Z250 XT Universal Restaurative; TC: TETRIC N Ceram; FB: FILTEK Bulk Fill Posterior Restaurative; TB: TETRIC N Ceram Bulk Fill.

According to a comparison between groups (Table 4), the 7 FB and FZ resins of the same commercial brand present significant differences between them (p < 0.05).

Table 4

Dental restoration internal gap size statistical analysis: Mann-Whitney
Comparison groups	p-value*
FZ-TC	0.271
FB-TB	0.000*
FZ-FB	0.001*
TC-TB	0.096
* p < 0,05

** FZ: FILTEK Z250 XT Universal Restaurative; TC: TETRIC N Ceram; FB: FILTEK Bulk Fill Posterior Restaurative; TB: TETRIC N Ceram Bulk Fill.

Finally, relative to the size of the internal gap according to the location, the TC, FB and TB resins present high values at the restoration floor level, while the FZ resin presents high values at the mesial level (Table 5).

Table 5

Dental restoration internal gap size mean (µm)
	n	FZ	TC	FB	TB
Mesial	10	221,03*	161,68	234,13	49,87
Distal	10	132,71	77,04	306,00	45,24
Piso	10	147,13	244,25*	399,29*	94,84*

** FZ: FILTEK Z250 XT Universal Restaurative; TC: TETRIC N Ceram; FB: FILTEK Bulk Fill Posterior Restaurative; TB: TETRIC N Ceram Bulk Fill.

In the present study, the internal gap formed between the restoration–tooth interface and the restoration operative time between bulk fill resins and conventional resins are observed; this analysis is crucial due to the importance of improving the clinical experience of a patient during restorations.

Composite resin is the most commonly used resin in direct adhesive restorations due to its aesthetic characteristics and mechanical properties. (4, 17, 18) One of the great advantages of this material is that it does not require the removal of healthy tissue for its retention and that it has good mechanical behavior in the posterior sector. (4, 18, 19) However, the disadvantages include the formation of secondary caries, fracture of the restoration, microleakage and marginal discoloration, which are all caused by polymerization shrinkage. (4)

This contraction is responsible for the presence of marginal leaks, a high coefficient of thermal expansion and the absorption of water, impoverishing the internal adaptation and forming gaps between the restoration material and the dental structure, which allows the filtration of fluids, thus affecting long-term retention; however, the success of restorations depends on shrinkage stress and various other factors that impoverish the marginal seal. (18, 20–21)

The results of this study show that bulk fill resins present smaller internal gaps than conventional resins, even from the same commercial company, in cavitary preparations with 4-mm depth; the Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill presents the best results (63.31 µm), with other studies that corroborate these findings. (15, 17)

There are several factors to consider that can generate failures in the restoration–tooth interface, forming an internal gap that causes microfiltration that is responsible for postoperative sensitivity and secondary caries, (21–22) such as cavitary preparation, restoration, adhesion, light irradiation, exposure time and the properties of the composite resin.

Bulk fill composite resins have small inorganic particle sizes, increasing the depth of light curing and allowing the passage of light in a better manner, reducing volumetric contraction and internal gap formation. (23–27)

Regarding the restoration technique, it is important to indicate that the restoration time is measured from the moment the resin is introduced into the cavity preparation; this indication avoids confusion with the time necessary for the clinical preparation of the patient and for the placement of the adhesive system in each restoration. It is possible to determine that the single-increment technique used in Bulk Fill resins compared to the incremental technique improves clinical restoration times with significant differences, avoiding the gaps that the interfaces between layers may present when the incremental technique is conducted, improving marginal sealing. Notably, class I cavity preparations are used to improve Factor C (configuration factor), which can strongly affect the polymerization stress of the composite resin. (28)

The FZ resin presents the greatest restoration–tooth interface with a value of 166.95 µm. The depth of the cavity preparation may affect the polymerization stress forming the internal gap because, despite using the incremental technique, the depth exceeds the specifications of conventional composite resins. (1, 5, 6)

A two-step adhesive is used because studies indicate that etch-and-wash adhesives generate a thick hybrid layer with long, wide and dense resin layers; at this point, the filtration in dentin is not significant because the dentin tubules are sealed after the application of the adhesive, thus avoiding microfiltration because greater control is maintained in the time of application of the phosphoric acid and adhesive. In addition, chlorhexidine is used, which has been shown to improve the resistance of the hybrid layer. (29) In this manner, it is possible to control errors in the adhesive sealing, improving the clinical restoration protocol. (30, 31)

It is important to remember that polymerization contraction affects the entire restoration–tooth interface. At this level, adding a poor-quality material can become more damaging to the dental structure.

By considering the limitations of the present in vitro study, it can be concluded that bulk fill resins present smaller internal gaps between restoration–tooth interfaces than conventional resins in 4 mm deep class I cavity preparations. In addition, single-increment restoration technique improves clinical restoration times relative to the oblique incremental technique.

FB: Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restaurative

TB: Tetric N Ceram Bulk Fill

FZ: Filtek Z250 XT Universal Restaurative

TC: Tetric N Ceram

GO: Gabriela Ortega (author)

PMS: Priscilla Medina-Sotomayor (author)

JA: José Aguilar (author)

Ethical approval and consent to participate

We inform that we have followed the ethical guidelines set out in the Declaration of Helsinki on the use of human organs and tissue. The execution of this research project was approved by a ethical committee/IRB of the Universidad Católica de Cuenca with registration No. CEISH-UASB-O-CEISH-2022-001. All teeth were extracted for therapeutic reasons unrelated to the study at the Teaching Clinic of the Faculty of Stomatology of the Universidad Católica de Cuenca. Such teeth are collected, stored under special conditions and used for further research studies, with prior informed consent of the patients.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Data are avalaible upon request at [email protected]

Competing interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest with the development and publication of this research.

Funding

The study was supported by the Universidad Católica de Cuenca (PICVII19-26)

Authors contributions

PMS raised the research idea, designed the methodology, supervised and excecuted the experimental part, processed the statistics, carried out the bibliographic search and wrote it. GO executed the experimental part (restorations). JA made the microscope readings and collected the sample. PO executed the experimental part, collect the sample and participated in the calibration. MR y RV sample sectioning, obteined the materials, collected the sample. All authors participated on the project administration, review, editing and approving the final draft.

Acknowledgemets

We thank the Research Department of the Universidad Católica de Cuenca for helping with finance support to develop this research.

Author details

¹Docente Investigador de la Universidad Católica de Cuenca, Carrera de Odontología, Campus Universitario Azogues, Ecuador; ^2,3,4,5Docentes de la Universidad Católica de Cuenca, Carrera de Odontología, Campus Universitario Azogues, Ecuador;^5,6Estudiantes de la Universidad Católica de Cuenca, Carrera de Odontología, Campus Universitario Azogues, Ecuador.

Martins, Laís Carvalho et al. “Effect of Composite Resin and Restorative Technique on Polymerization Shrinkage Stress, Cuspal Strain and Fracture Load of Weakened Premolars.J Adhes Dent. 2021;22(5):503-514.
Ajaj, Reem A., et al. "Dental bulk-fill resin composites polymerization efficiency: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Compos. Sci. 2021;5(6):149
Duarte, Júlio César Lemos et al. “Interfacial Stress and Bond Strength of Bulk-Fill or Conventional Composite Resins to Dentin in Class II Restorations. Braz Dent J. 2020;31(5):532-539.
Kruly, Paula de Castro et al. Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage resin in comparison to methacrylate composite resin. PLOS ONE. 2018;13(2):e0191942.
Aggarwal, Nidhi et al. “The comparative evaluation of depth of cure of bulk-fill composites - An in vitro study. JCD. 2020;5(2):371-375
Alqudaihi, F S et al. “Comparison of Internal Adaptation of Bulk-fill and Increment-fill Resin Composite Materials. Oper Dent. 2019;44(1):E32-E44.
Peskersoy, Cem et al. “The effect of composite placement technique on the internal adaptation, gap formation and microshear bond strength. Eur Oral Res. 2022;56(1):10-16.
Peutzfeldt, A et al. “Marginal Gap Formation in Approximal "Bulk Fill" Resin Composite Restorations After Artificial Ageing. Oper Dent. 2018;43(2):180-189.
Pinto, Guilherme et al. “Effect of different adhesive strategies on the microtensile bond strength of dentin to indirect resin-based composite. J Clin Exp Dent. 2020;12(11):e1066-e1070.
Zotti, Francesca et al. “Microleakage of Direct Restorations-Comparisonbetween Bulk-Fill and Traditional Composite Resins:Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur J Dent. 2021;15(4):755–767.
Ahmed, Radwa, and Hend Ahmed. Fracture resistance of mod cavities in maxillary premolar teeth restored with different restorative protocols: an in-vitro study. E.D.J. 2022;68(2):1907:1916.
Iwasaki, Taro et al. “Evaluation of the mechanical behavior of bulk-fill and conventional flowable resin composites using dynamic micro-indentation. Dent Mater J. 2022;41(1):87-94.
Soto-Montero, Jorge et al. “Comparison of the operative time and presence of voids of incremental and bulk-filling techniques on Class II composite restorations. Quintessence Int. 2022;53(3):200-208
Duarte, Júlio César Lemos et al. “Interfacial Stress and Bond Strength of Bulk-Fill or Conventional Composite Resins to Dentin in Class II Restorations. Braz Dent J. 2020;31(5):532-539.
Han, S-H, and S-H Park. “Incremental and Bulk-fill Techniques With Bulk-fill Resin Composite in Different Cavity Configurations. Oper Dent. 2018;43(6):631-641
Gale, M S, and B W Darvell. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent. 1999;27(2):89-99
Cayo-Rojas, César F et al. Microleakage in class II restorations of two bulk fill resin composites and a conventional nanohybrid resin composite: an in vitro study at 10,000 thermocycles. BMC oral health. 2021;21(1):619.
Liu, Jiani et al. “The Development of Filler Morphology in Dental Resin Composites: A Review.” Materials (Basel, Switzerland). Materials (Basel). 2021;14(19):5612
Rachmia J. Fauziyah S. Dental Composite Resin: A Review. AIP Conf.Proc. 2019;(1):2193.
Gamarra, Vania Stephanie Sánchez et al. Marginal adaptation and microleakage of a bulk-fill composite resin photopolymerized with different techniques. Odontology. 2018;106(1):56–63.
Papagiannoulis L, Kakaboura A, Eliades G. In vivo vs in vitro anticariogenic behavior of glass-ionomer and resin composite restorative materials. Dent Mater. 2002;18:561–9.
Thomas RZ, Ruben JL, ten Bosch JJ, Fidler V, Huysmans MC. Approximal secondary caries lesion progression, a 20-week in situ study. Caries Res 2007;41:399–405.
Guéders AM, Charpentier JF, Albert AI, Geerts SO. Microleakage After Thermocycling of 4 Etch and Rinse and 3 Self-etch Adhesives with and Without a Flowable Composite Lining. Oper Dent 2006;31(4):450-455.
Hayashi J, Espigares J, Takagaki T, Shimada Y, Tagami J, Numata T, Chan D, Sadr A. Real-time in-depth imaging of gap formation in bulk-fill resin composites. Dental materials: official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials. 2019;35(4):585-596.
Alsagob E, Bardwell D, Ali A, Dhayat S, Stark P. Comparison of microleakage between bulk-fill flowable and nanofilled resin-based composites. Interventional medicine & applied science. 2018;10(2):102–109.
Poggio C, Chiesa M, Scribante A, Mekler J, Colombo M. Microleakage in Class II composite restorations with margins below the CEJ: In vitro evaluation of different restorative techniques. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013;1(5):793-8
Benetti AR, Havndrup-Pedersen C, Honoré C, Pedersen MK, Pallesen U. Bulk-fill resin composites: polymerization contraction, depth of cure, and gap formation Oper Dent. 2015;40(2):190-200.
Han SH, Sadr A, Shimada Y, Tagami J, Park SH. Adaptation Internal of composite restorations with or without intermediate an layer effect of polymerization shrinkage parameters of the layer material. JDent. 2019;80:41–8.
Breschi L, Maravic T, Comba A, Cunha SR, Loguercio AD, Reis A, Hass V, Cadenaro M, Mancuso E, Mayer-Santos E, Niu L, Pashley DH, Tay FR, Mazzoni A. Chlorhexidine preserves the hybrid layer in vitro after 10-years aging. Dent Mater. 2020;36(5):672-680.
Tosco V, Vitiello F, Furlani M, Gatto ML, Monterubbianesi R, Giuliani A, Orsini G, Putignano A. Microleakage analysis of Different Bulk-Filling Techniques for Class II Restorations: CT, SEM and EDS Evaluations. Materials. 2021;14(1):31.
Tran, Vinh X, Quang K. “Microleakage and characteristics of resin-tooth tissues interface of a self-etch and an etch-and-rinse adhesive systems.” Restorative dentistry & endodontics. 2021; 46(2):30

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Dental restoration operative time and analysis of the internal gap caused by the microfiltration of conventional resins (incremental technique) vs. bulk fill (single-increment technique): In vitro study

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Sample calculation and selection

Tooth preparation

Cavity conditioning and restorations

Thermocycling, preparation and immersion of teeth in dye

Sample sectioning and observation

Statistical analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1