Evaluation of internal adaptation of flowable and bulk-fill resin-based composites


  • Ros Anita Omar Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya
  • Noor Azlin Yahya
  • Christina Maria Noel
  • Nor Suhana Azni Satapa




Flowable composite, cohesive failure, adhesive failure, self-etch adhesive system, internal gap formation


This study aimed to evaluate and compare the internal adaptation of bulk-fill resin-based composite restorative materials with flowable composites as lining materials using self-etch adhesive system. Class I cavities (2mmx4mm) were prepared on flattened occlusal surfaces of fifty extracted human premolars and randomly assigned into five groups (n=10) according to the materials used: Beautifil Bulk-fill Restorative (BR); Beautifil Bulk-fill Flowable (BF); Beautifil Flow Flowable F10 (BF10); and Self-etch adhesive (SEA). Group A: SEA+BR; Group B: SEA+BF10+BR; Group C: SEA+BF+BR; Group D: SEA+BF10+SEA+BR and Group E: SEA+BF+SEA+BR. The samples were thermocycled for 500 cycles, then sectioned mesiodistally, polished and pre-treated prior to scanning electron microscopy (SEM) evaluation. From SEM images, measurement of adhesive and cohesive adaptation failures was recorded at multiple sites of the pulpal floor and in between materials. Data were analysed using one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests (p<0.05). Cohesive failure in SEA was observed at the pulpal floor with the lowest percentage in Group A (5.14%), and highest in Group C and E (>16%). However, there were no significant difference among all groups. Adhesive failure was seen at the pulpal floor between SEA+BF/BF10/BR and between SEA+dentine with the highest percentage of gaps formed in Group A between SEA+dentine (6.62%) and SEA+BR (5.30%). Nonetheless, no significant differences were observed among all groups with p=0.89 and p=0.70, respectively. With the use of BF/BF10 at the pulpal floor, adhesive failure was reduced but resulted in increased of cohesive failure. However, both adaptation failures were absent between materials (BF/BF10 and BR) regardless with or without application of SEA.


Download data is not yet available.


1. Cramer NB, Stansbury JW, Bowman CN. Recent advances and developments in composite dental restorative materials. J Dent Res 2011; 90(4): 402–416.
2. Kumar JS, Jayalakshmi S. Bond failure and its prevention in composite restoration; A review. J Pharm Sci Res 2016; 8(7): 627-631.
3. Bagis YH, Baltacioglu IH, Kahyaogullari S. Comparing microleakage and layering methods of silorane based resin composite in wide Class II MOD cavities. Oper Dent 2009; 34(5): 578-585.
4. Langalia A, Buch A, Khamar M, Patel P. Polymerisation shrinkage of composite resin. J Med Dent Sci Res 2015; 2(10): 23-27.
5. Schneider LFJ, Cavalcante LM, Silikas N. Shrinkage stress generated during resin-composite application: A review. J Dent Biomech 2010; 2010: 1-14.
6. Nikolaenko SA, Lohbauer U, Roggendorf M, Petschelt A, Dasch W, Frankenberger R. Influence of c-factor and layering technique on microtensile bond strength to dentine. Dent Mater 2004; 20(6): 579-585.
7. Haak R, Wicht MJ. Marginal and internal adaptation of extended Class I restoration lined with flowable composite. J Dent 2003; 31(4): 231-239
8. Alkurdi RM, Abboud SA. Clinical evaluation of Class II composite resin restorations placed by two different bulk-fill techniques. J Dent Orofac Sci 2016; 8(1): 34-39.
9. Barros R, Lins E, Martins LRM. Bulk-fill resin-based composites. Adv Dent Oral Health 2017; 4(5): 1-2.
10. Park SH, Jung JJ, Han SH. Internal and marginal adaptation of bulk filled composite. J Dent Mater 2015; 31(1): 1-66.
11. Gupta SK, Mann NS, Kaur SP, Singh JP. Bulk-fill vs conventional composites: A microleakage study. J Perio Med Clin Prac 2016; 3(3): 122-127.
12. Dauvillier BS, Aarnts MP, Feilzer AJ, Development in shrinkage control of adhesive restorative. J Esthet Dent 2000; 12(6): 291-299.
13. Baig MM, Mustafa M, Al Jaeidi ZA, Muhaiza MA. Evaluation in restoration using different resin composition insertion techniques and liners in preparation with high C-factor. J Dent Sci 2013: 4(2): 57-64.
14. Dionysopoulos D, Papadopoulos C, Koliniotou-koumpia E. The evaluation of various restoration techniques on internal adaptation of composite in Class V cavities. Inter J Biomater 2014: 2014: 1-6.
15. Frankenberger R, Lopes M, Perdgao J, Wallace W, Ambross, Bruno T, Rosa. The use of flowable composites as filled adhesives. J Dent Mater 2002: 18(3): 227-238.
16. Lokhande NA, Padmai AS, Rathore VP, Shingane S, Jayashankar DA, Sharma U. Effectiveness of flowable resin composite in reducing microleakage - An in vitro study. J Inter Oral Health 2014; 6(3): 111–114.
17. Yousaf A, Aman N, Manzoor MA, Shah JA, Dilrasheed. Postoperative sensitivity of self-etch versus total etch adhesive. J College Physic Surg 2014; 24(6): 383-386.
18. Gupta A, Tavane P, Gupta PK, Tejolatha B, Lakhani AA, Tiwari R, Kashyap S, Garg G. Evaluation of microleakage with total etch, self-etch and universal adhesive systems in Class V restorations: An in vitro study. J Clin Diag Res 2017; 11(4): 53-56.
19. Walshaw PR, Tam LE, McComb D. Bond failure at dentin-composite interfaces with 'single-bottle' adhesives. J Dent 2003; 31(2): 117-125.
20. Von Fraunhofer JA. Adhesion and cohesion. International J Dent 2012; 2012: 1-8.
21. Aggrawal V, Sngla M, Yadav S, Yadav H. Effect of flowable composite liner and glass ionomer liner on Class II gingival marginal adaptation of direct composite restorations with different bonding strategies. J Dent 2014; 42(5): 619-625.
22. Sadeghi M, Lynch CD. The effects of flowable materials on the microleakage of Class II composite restorations that extend apical to cemento-enamel junction. J Oper Dent 2009; 34(3): 306-311.
23. Korkmaz Y, Ozel E, Attar N. Effect of flowable composite lining on microleakage and internal voids and Class II composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 2007; 9(2): 189-194.
24. Lohande NA, Padmai AS, Rathore VPS, Shinga S, Jayashankar DN, Sharma U. Effectiveness of flowable composite in reducing microleakage- An in vitro study. J Inter Oral Health 2014; 6(3): 111-114.
25. Tanno K, Hiraishi N, Otsuki M, Tagami J. Evaluation of cavity adaptation of low-shrinkage composite resin. Asian Pac J Dent 2011; 11: 27-33.
26. Pecei R, Onisor I, Krejci I, Bortolotto T Marginal adaptation of direct Class II composite restoration with different cavity liners. J Oper Dent 2013; 38(6): 210-220.
27. Han SH, Sadr A, Tagam J, Par SH. internal adaptation of resin composites at two configurations: influence of polymerisation shrinkage and stress. J Dent Mater 2016; 3(2): 1085-1094.
28. Oliveira LCA, Duarte S, Araujo CA, Abrahao A. Effect of low-elastic modulus liner and base as stress-absorbing layer in composite resin restorations. J Dent Mater 2010; 26(3): 159-169.
29. Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Complete marginal seal of Class V resin composite restorations effected by increased flexibility. J Dent Res 1990; 69(6): 1240-1243.
30. Baroudi K, Jean C, Rodrigues. Flowable resin composites: A systematic review and clinical consideration. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9(6): ZE18-ZE24.
31. Pereira JC, D'Alpino PHP, Lopes LG, Franco EB, Mondelli RFL, Souza JB. Evaluation of internal adaptation of Class V resin composite restorations using three techniques of polymerization. J App Oral Sci 2007; 15(1): 49-54.
32. Yahagi C, Takagaki T, Sadr A, Ikeda M, Nikaido T, Tagami J. Effect of lining with a flowable composite restorations using all-in-one adhesive systems. J Dent Mater 2012; 31(3): 481-488.
33. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Have dentine adhesives become too hydrophilic? J Can Dent Assoc 2003; 69(11): 726-731.
34. Hiraishi N, Nishiyama N, Ikemura K, Yau JYY, King NM, Tagami J, Tay FR. Water concentration in self-etching primers affects their aggressiveness and bonding efficacy to dentin. J Dent Res 2005; 84(7):653-658.






Original/Research Article

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>