• Proceedings of the KACD Conference
• /
• 2001.11a
• /
• pp.558.1-558
• /
• 2001

Flowable resin composite is a relatively new restorative material. It has been reported that a low viscosity, low modulus intermediate resin applied between the bonding agent and restorative resin act as an "elastic buffer" that can relieve contraction stress. This in-vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of flowable composite resin as a restorative material on regional tensile bond stredgth to cervical wedge shaped cavity walls. (omitted)

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.34 no.5
• /
• pp.397-405
• /
• 2009

This study compared the effect of an activator, intermediate bonding resin and low-viscosity flowable resin on the microtensile bond strength of a self-curing composite resin used with two-step total etching adhesives. Twenty extracted permanent molars were used. The teeth were assigned randomly to nine groups (n=10) according to the adhesive system and application of additional methods (activator, intermediate adhesive, flowable resin). The bonding agents and additional applications of each group were applied to the dentin surfaces. Self-curing composite resin buildups were made for each tooth to form a core, 5mm in height. The restored teeth were then stored in distilled water at room temperature for 24h before sectioning. The microtensile bond strength of all specimens was examined. The data was analyzed statistically by one-way ANOVA and a Scheffe's test. The application of an intermediate bonding resin (Optibond FL adhesive) and low-viscosity flowable resin (Tetric N-flow) produced higher bond strength than that with the activator in all groups. Regardless of the method selected, Optibond solo plus produced the lowest ${\mu}TBS$ to dentin. The failure modes of the tested dentin bonding agents were mostly adhesive failure but there were some cases showed cohesive failure in the resin.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.34 no.6
• /
• pp.477-483
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study was to compare the microleakage of low and high viscosity flowable resins in class V cavities applied with 1-step adhesives. Forty Class V cavities were prepared on the cervices of buccal and lingual surfaces of extracted molar teeth and divided into four groups (n=8). Cavities were restored with AQ Bond Plus /Metafil Flo $\alpha$, G-Bond/ UniFil LoFlo Plus (Low flow groups), AQ Bond Plus/Metafil Flo and G-Bond/UniFil Flow (High flow group), respectively. Specimens were immersed in a 2% methylene blue solution for 24 hours, and bisected longitudinally. They were observed microleakages at the enamel and dentinal margins. In conclusion, the low viscosity flowable resins showed lower marginal microleakage than do the high vis cosity flowable resins in class V cavities.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.46 no.1
• /
• pp.1-9
• /
• 2019

The aim of this study was to compare the degree of conversion and polymerization shrinkage of low and high viscosity bulk-fill giomer-based and resin-based composites. Two bulk-fill giomer (Beautifil Bulk Restorative (BBR), Beautifil Bulk Flowable (BBF)), two bulk-fill (Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-fill (TBF), SureFil SDR flow (SDR)) and two conventional resin composites (Tetric N-Ceram (TN), Tetric N-flow (TF)) were selected for this study. The degree of conversion was measured by using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Polymerization shrinkage was measured with the linometer. For all depth, BBR had the lowest degree of conversion and SDR had the highest. At 4 mm, the degree of conversion of low and high viscosity bulk-fill giomer resin composites was lower than that of bulk-fill resin composites (p < 0.05). At the depth between 2 mm and 4 mm, there were significant difference with TBF, TN and TF (p < 0.05), while no significant difference in the degree of conversion was measured for BBR, BBF and SDR. Polymerization shrinkage of six resin composites decreased in the following order: TF > SDR > BBF > TBF > TN and BBR (p < 0.05). Polymerization shrinkage of bulk-fill giomer resin composites was lower than that of bulk-fill resin composites (p < 0.05). From this study, it is found that the bulk-fill giomer resin composites and TBF were not sufficiently cured in 4 mm depth. The degree of conversion of low and high viscosity bulk-fill giomer resin composites was significantly lower than bulk-fill resin composites in both 2 mm and 4 mm depths. Therefore, such features of bulk-fill giomer resin composites should be carefully considered in clinical application.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.142-149
• /
• 2002

Low-viscosity composite resins may produce better sealed margins than stiffer compositions (KempScholte and Davidson, 1988: Crim, 1989). Plowable composites have been recommended for use in Class V cavities but it is also controversial because of its high rates of shrinkage. On the other hand, in the study comparing elastic moduli and leakage, the microfill had the least leakage (Rundle et at. 1997) Furthermore, in the 1996 survey of the Reality Editorial Team, microfills were the clear choice for abfraction lesions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the microleakage of 6 compostite resins (2 hybrids, 2 microfills, and 2 flowable composites) with and without load cycling. Notch-shaped Class V cavities were prepared on buccal surface of 180 extracted human upper premolars on cementum margin. The teeth were randomly divided into non-load cycling group (group 1) and load cycling group (group 2) of 90 teeth each. The experimental teeth of each group were randomly divided into 6 subgroups of 15 samples. All preparations were etched, and Single bond was applied. Preparations were restored with the following materials (n=15) : hybrid composite resin [Z250(3M Dental Products Inc. St. Paul, USA), Denfil(Vericom, Ahnyang, Korea)], microfill [Heliomolar RO(Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein), Micronew(Bisco Inc. Schaumburg, IL, USA)], and flowable composite［AeliteFlo(Bisco Inc. Schaumburg, IL, USA), Revolution(Kerr Corp. Orange, CA, USA)]. Teeth of group 2 were subjected to occlusal load (100N for 50,000 cycles) using chewing simulator(MTS 858 Mini Bionix II system, MTS Systems Corp. Minn. USA). All samples were coated with nail polish 1mm short of the restoration, placed in 2％ methylene blue for 24 hours, and sectioned with a diamond wheel. Enamel and dentin/cementum margins were analyzed for microleakage on a sclale of 0 (no leakage) to 3 (3/3 of wall). Results were statistically analyzed by Kruscal-Wallis One way analysis, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Student-Newmann-Keuls method. (p = 0.05) Results : 1. There was significantly less microleage in enamel margins than dentinal margins of all groups (p＜0.05) 2. There was no significant between six composite resin in enamel margin of group 1. 3. In dentin margin of group 1, flowable composite had more microleakage than others but not of significant differences. 4. there was no significant difference between six composite resin in enamel margin of group 2. 5. In dentin margin of group 2, the microleakage were R＞A =H=M＞D＞Z. But there was no significant differences. 6. In enamel margins, load cycling did not affect the marginal microleakage in significant degree. 7. In enamel margins, load cycling did affect the marginal microleakage only in Revolution. (p＜0.05).