Resumo O presente estudo teve por objetivo avaliar a contração de polimerização (CP) usando microtomografia computadorizada (µCT) e a resistência de união por microtração (µTBS) em restaurações classe I de compósitos bulk fill (CBF) e convencional, assim como a correlação entre esses fatores. Cavidades classe I (4 x 5 x 4 mm), fator C=4,2, foram feitas em terceiros molares livres de cárie que foram randomizados e divididos em 4 grupos (n = 6): XTI (Filtek Supreme XTE: técnica incremental); XTB (Filtek Supreme XTE: técnica de preenchimento único); TBF (Tetric Bulk Fill); E SF (SonicFill). Cada dente foi escaneado duas vezes em μCT: T0 -após o preenchimento da cavidade com compósito, e T1 - após a cura à luz. Os dados foram analisados subtraindo o volume do compósito para cada tempo (T1 - T0). Após 1 semana, os dentes foram seccionados transversalmente no sentido vestíbulo-palatino e mesio-distal para obter espécimes com aproximadamente 1 mm² de espessura e fixados em uma máquina de ensaio universal para teste de μTBS. Os testes de Kruskal-Wallis e Dunn mostraram diferença estatisticamente significante para a contração em μCT entre XTI e XTB, e entre SF e XTB. Em relação à μTBS, todos os grupos diferiram do XTB. Compósitos do tipo bulk fill apresentam uma CP similar ao compósito convencional nanoparticulado inserido usando a técnica incremental, porém a resistência de união foi maior para o grupo incremental, que apresentou um menor número de falhas pré-teste quando comparado aos CBF. Não foi observada correlação entre a contração de polimerização e a resistência de união nos compósitos estudados.

Abstract The present study aimed to evaluates polymerization shrinkage (PS) using microcomputed tomography (μCT) and microtensile bond strength (μTBS) in bulk fill composites (BFC) and conventional class I restorations as well as the correlation between these factors. Class I cavities (4 x 5 x 4 mm), factor-C = 4.2, were created in third molars that were free of caries, which were randomly divided in 4 groups (n = 6): XTI (Filtek Supreme XTE: incremental technique); XTB (Filtek Supreme XTE: single fill technique); TBF (Tetric Bulk Fill); and SF (SonicFill). Each tooth was scanned twice in μCT: T0 was after filling the cavity with composite, and T1 was after light curing. The data were analyzed by subtracting the composite volume for each time (T1 - T0). After 1 week, the teeth were sectioned crosswise in the buccolingual and mesiodistal directions to obtain specimens with approximately 1 mm² thickness and fixed in a universal testing machine to perform μTBS. The Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests showed a statistically significant difference for shrinkage in µCT among the XTI and XTB and between the SF and XTB. Regarding the μTBS, all the groups differed from XTB. Bulk fill composites type presents a PS similar to that of the conventional nanoparticulate composite inserted using the incremental technique, but the bond strength was higher for the incremental group, which presented a lower number of pre-test failures when compared to BFC. No correlation was observed between the polymerization shrinkage and bond strength in the studied composites.

Abstract: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the volume of polymerization shrinkage (VS), gap (VG), and void (VV) using computerized microtomography (μCT) in bulk fill resin composites and conventional class I restorations, and to establish a correlation between these factors. Class I cavities (4 x 5 x 4 mm), C-factor = 4.2, were performed on caries-free human third molars and randomly divided into five groups (n = 6): FSI (Filtek Supreme XTE incremental insertion); FSS [(Filtek Supreme XTE single insertion(SI)]; TBF [(Tetric Bulk Fill: SI and manual filling (MF)]; SFM (Sonic Fill: SI/MF); and SFS (SonicFill: SI and sonic filling). The teeth were scanned and analyzed by μCT at T0, after filling the cavity with resin, and at T1, after polymerization for VG and VV, and for VS (T1-T0). There was statistically significant difference in VS in μCT for the FSI and FSS groups and between SFS and FSS as well as some difference in VV for FSI and bulk fill resin composites and no difference in VG between the conventional technique and bulk fill composites. Bulk fill resin composites presented similar VS and gap formation to those of incrementally inserted conventional resin composites. There is a moderate and weak positive correlation between polymerization shrinkage and gap formation and void, respectively. The final gap formation was more dependent on the initial gap than on polymerization shrinkage or void volume.