Abstract Gap formation of composite resin restorations is a serious shortcoming in clinical practice. Polymerization shrinkage stress exceeds the tooth-restoration bond strength, and it causes bacterial infiltration within gaps between cavity walls and the restorative material. Thus, an intermediate liner application with a low elastic modulus has been advised to minimize polymerization shrinkage as well as gap formation. Objective: The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess gap formation volume in premolars restored with different bulk-fill composites, with and without a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) liner, using x-ray micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Methodology: Sixty extracted human maxillary premolars were divided into six groups according to bucco-palatal dimensions (n=10). Standardized Class II mesio-occluso-distal cavities were prepared. G-Premio Bond (GC Corp., Japan) was applied in the selective-etch mode. Teeth were restored with high-viscosity (Filtek Bulk Fill, 3M ESPE, USA)-FB, sonic-activated (SonicFill 2, Kerr, USA)-SF and low viscosity (Estelite Bulk Fill Flow, Tokuyama, Japan)-EB bulk-fill composites, with and without a liner (Ionoseal, Voco GmbH, Germany)-L. The specimens were subjected to 10,000 thermocycles (5-55°C) and 50,000 simulated chewing cycles (100 N). Gap formation based on the volume of black spaces at the tooth-restoration interface was quantified in mm3 using micro-computed tomography (SkyScan, Belgium), and analyses were performed. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA and the Bonferroni correction test (p < 0.05). Results: The gap volume of all tested bulk-fill composites demonstrated that Group SF (1.581±0.773) had significantly higher values than Group EB (0.717±0.679). Regarding the use of a liner, a significant reduction in gap formation volume was observed only in Group SFL (0.927±0.630) compared with Group SF (1.581±0.773). Conclusion: It can be concluded that different types of bulk-fill composite resins affected gap formation volume. Low-viscosity bulk-fill composites exhibited better adaptation to cavity walls and less gap formation than did sonic-activated bulk-fill composites. The use of an RMGIC liner produced a significant reduction in gap formation volume for sonic-activated bulk-fill composites.

OBJECTIVES: Adhesive systems are continuously being introduced to Dentistry, unfortunately often without sufficient clinical validation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of cervical restorations done with three different adhesive systems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 158 non-carious cervical lesions of 23 patients were restored with a nanofilled composite resin (Filtek Supreme, 3M/ESPE) combined with Single Bond (3M/ESPE, group SI), Clearfil SE (Kuraray Medical Inc., group CL) and Xeno III (De Trey Dentsply, group XE). In groups SI-B, CL-B and XE-B, the outer surface of the sclerotic dentin was removed by roughening with a diamond bur before application of the respective adhesive systems. In groups CL-BP and XE-BP, after removal of the outer surface of the sclerotic dentin with the bur, the remaining dentin was etched with 37% phosphoric acid and the self-etch adhesive systems Clearfil SE and Xeno III were applied, respectively. Lesions were evaluated at baseline, and restorations after 3 months, 1 year and 2 years using modified USPHS criteria. RESULTS: After 2 years, no significant difference was found between the retention rates of the groups (p >0.05). Although groups CL and SI showed significantly better marginal adaptation than group XE (p<0.05) at 2 years, no significant difference was found between the marginal adaptation of the groups SI-B, CL-B and XE-B (p>0.05). After 2 years no significant difference was observed among the marginal staining results of all groups (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Although all adhesive systems showed similar retention rates, Clearfil SE and Single Bond showed better marginal adaptation than Xeno III after 2 years of follow-up.