Comparing Marginal Microleakage of Two Bulk Fill Composites in Class I Cavities: An in Vitro Study

ABSTRACT

Microleakage is considered to be an important factor influencing the longevity of dental restorations. Bulk Fill composites possess specific characteristics, including more desirable flowability to attain consistent adaptation to the cavity preparation. Elasticity and low polymerization shrinkage in bulk fills minimizes microleakage, postoperative sensitivity, and secondary caries. Improved depth of curing of at least 4 mm eliminates the need for layering. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the microleakage in two Bulk Fill composites - SonicFill (Kerr corp. USA) and TetricEvo Ceram Bulk Fill (IvoclarVivadent) using stereomicroscope. Methods: 40 caries/cracks free extracted human maxillary premolars were used. A class 1 cavity measuring 3mm by 3mm by 2mm was prepared in all the teeth and then teeth were divided into 2 groups of 20 each, Group I SonicFill Bulk Fill composite and Group II TetricEvo Ceram Bulk Fill composite. All specimens have been thermocycled for one thousand cycles (5/55ºC, 30 seconds) in Eppendorf Master Cycler gradient (Eppendorf AG, Hamburg, Germany). All samples were immersed in 2% methylene blue dye for 24 hours. Teeth were sectioned mesio-distally and observed under a stereomicroscope and dye leakage scored. Results: The mean microleakage of SonicFill(KERR) was 1.75 and of TetricEvoCeram (IVOCLAR) was 2.55.The mean microleakage was higher in Teric EvoCeram than in Sonic fill and the difference was statistically significant. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it may be concluded that Sonic Bulk Fill composite shows lesser microleakage than Tetric EvoCeram.