Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 747–755 | Cite as

Sufficiency of curing in high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites with enhanced opacity

  • Nicoleta IlieEmail author
Original Article



The study aims analyzing if improved opacity in modern high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites (BF-RBC) contradicts with the sufficiency of curing and to assess material’s tolerance to less ideal curing conditions.

Materials and methods

Simulated large cavities (10 × 6) mm were filled in one increment with three BF-RBCs (Filtek One, FO; Tetric Evo Ceram Bulk Fill, TEC-BF; SonicFill2, SF2). One central and two peripheral (4 mm apart from the center) micromechanical property line-profiles (HV, Vickers hardness; YHU, indentation modulus) were measured in 0.2-mm steps at 24 h post-polymerization (n = 6). Depth of cure (DOC) was calculated from the HV variation in depth. A scratch test (DOCscratch test) estimated the tolerance in polymerization when simulating clinically relevant curing conditions (exposure distance up to 7 mm; centered and with a 3-mm offset placement of the LCU). Irradiance and spectral distribution of the used light curing unit (LCU) were assessed at various curing conditions.


DOC varied among 3.6 mm (SF2, peripheral) and 5.7 mm (FO, central). The BF-RBC influences DOC stronger (p < 0.001, ηP2 = 0.616) than the width (p < 0.001, ηP2 = 0.398). Significant lower DOC (t test) was measured peripheral compared to center in all materials. YHU was more sensitive to the varied parameters as HV. DOCscratch test varied among 2.4 mm (SF2, 3-mm offset, exposure distance 7 mm) and 3.9 mm (FO, center, 0 mm).


Whether opacity competes with DOC is material dependent. BF-RBCs tolerate small variations in LCU’s centricity better than variations in exposure distance.

Clinical relevance

The upper incremental thickness threshold of 4 or 5 mm was not reached in all BF-RBCs under simulated clinically relevant curing conditions.


Bulk-fill resin composite Opacity Translucency Depth of cure Hardness Indentation modulus LCU 



The work was supported by the Department of Operative/Restorative Dentistry, Periodontology and Pedodontics, Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich to 65% and by the company 3M ESPE to 35%.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Margeas RC (2015) Bulk-fill materials: simplify restorations, reduce chairtime. Compend Contin Educ Dent 36:e1–e4Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McHugh LEJ, Politi I, Al-Fodeh RS, Fleming GJP (2017) Implications of resin-based composite (RBC) restoration on cuspal deflection and microleakage score in molar teeth: placement protocol and restorative material. Dent Mater 33:e329–e335. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ilie N, Bucuta S, Draenert M (2013) Bulk-fill resin-based composites: an in vitro assessment of their mechanical performance. Oper Dent 38:618–625. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Peutzfeldt A, Muhlebach S, Lussi A, Flury S (2017) Marginal gap formation in approximal “bulk fill” resin composite restorations after artificial ageing. Oper Dent 43:180–189. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sampaio CS, Chiu KJ, Farrokhmanesh E, Janal M, Puppin-Rontani RM, Giannini M, Bonfante EA, Coelho PG, Hirata R (2017) Microcomputed tomography evaluation of polymerization shrinkage of class I flowable resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 42:E16–E23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Toh WS, Yap AU, Lim SY (2015) In vitro biocompatibility of contemporary bulk-fill composites. Oper Dent 40:644–652. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alshali RZ, Salim NA, Sung R, Satterthwaite JD, Silikas N (2015) Analysis of long-term monomer elution from bulk-fill and conventional resin-composites using high performance liquid chromatography. Dent Mater 31:1587–1598. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miletic V, Peric D, Milosevic M, Manojlovic D, Mitrovic N (2016) Local deformation fields and marginal integrity of sculptable bulk-fill, low-shrinkage and conventional composites. Dent Mater 32:1441–1451. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Han SH, Sadr A, Tagami J, Park SH (2016) Internal adaptation of resin composites at two configurations: influence of polymerization shrinkage and stress. Dent Mater 32:1085–1094. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Al Sunbul H, Silikas N, Watts DC (2016) Polymerization shrinkage kinetics and shrinkage-stress in dental resin-composites. Dent Mater 32:998–1006. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U (2017) Bulk-filled posterior resin restorations based on stress-decreasing resin technology: a randomized, controlled 6-year evaluation. Eur J Oral Sci 125:303–309. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McGuirk C, Hussain F, Millar BJ (2017) Survival of direct posterior composites with and without a bulk Fill Base. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 25:136–142. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bayraktar Y, Ercan E, Hamidi MM, Colak H (2017) One-year clinical evaluation of different types of bulk-fill composites. J Investig Clin Dent 8:1–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Atabek D, Aktas N, Sakaryali D, Bani M (2017) Two-year clinical performance of sonic-resin placement system in posterior restorations. Quintessence Int 48:743–751. Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yazici AR, Antonson SA, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E (2017) Thirty-six-month clinical comparison of bulk fill and nanofill composite restorations. Oper Dent 42:478–485. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shortall AC, Palin WM, Burtscher P (2008) Refractive index mismatch and monomer reactivity influence composite curing depth. J Dent Res 87:84–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bucuta S, Ilie N (2014) Light transmittance and micro-mechanical properties of bulk fill vs. conventional resin based composites. Clin Oral Investig 18:1991–2000. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ilie N, Stark K (2015) Effect of different curing protocols on the mechanical properties of low-viscosity bulk-fill composites. Clin Oral Investig 19:271–279. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ilie N, Stark K (2014) Curing behaviour of high-viscosity bulk-fill composites. J Dent 42:977–985. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shimokawa CA, Turbino ML, Harlow JE, Price HL, Price RB (2016) Light output from six battery operated dental curing lights. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 69:1036–1042. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ilie N, Luca BI (2018) Efficacy of modern light curing units in polymerizing peripheral zones in simulated large bulk-fill resin-composite fillings. Oper Dent.
  22. 22.
    DIN 50359-1:1997-10 (1997) Testing of metallic materials—universal hardness test—part 1: test method Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Watts DC, Amer O, Combe EC (1984) Characteristics of visible-light-activated composite systems. Br Dent J 156:209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    ISO 4049:2009 (2009) Dentistry—polymer-based restorative materialsGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ilie N (2017) Impact of light transmittance mode on polymerisation kinetics in bulk-fill resin-based composites. J Dent 63:51–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    3M Oral Care (2016) 3M™ Filtek™ One Bulk Fill Restorative, Technical Product Profile.
  27. 27.
    Joly GD, Abuelyaman AS, Fornof AR, Craig BD, Krepski LR, Moser WH, Yurt S, Oxman JD, Falsafi A (2016) Dental compositions comprising addition-fragmentation agents, United States Patent, Patent No.: US 9.414,996 B2Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moad G, Rizzardo E, Thang SH (2008) Radical addition–fragmentation chemistry in polymer synthesis. Polymer 49:1079–1131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moad G, Chong YK, Postma A, Rizzardo E, Thang SH (2005) Advances in RAFT polymerization: the synthesis of polymers with defined end-groups. Polymer 46:8458–8468. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schulz H, Burtscher P, Mädler L (2007) Correlating filler transparency with inorganic/polymer composite transparency. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf 38:2451–2459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ikemura K, Endo T (2010) A review of the development of radical photopolymerization initiators used for designing light-curing dental adhesives and resin composites. Dent Mater J 29:481–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Moszner N, Fischer UK, Ganster B, Liska R, Rheinberger V (2008) Benzoyl germanium derivatives as novel visible light photoinitiators for dental materials. Dent Mater 24:901–907. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Flury S, Hayoz S, Peutzfeldt A, Husler J, Lussi A (2012) Depth of cure of resin composites: is the ISO 4049 method suitable for bulk fill materials? Dent Mater 28:521–528. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Operative Dentistry and PeriodontologyUniversity Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations