Interfacial Stress and Bond Strength of Bulk-Fill or Conventional Composite Resins to Dentin in Class II Restorations.

The aim was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (mTBS) to dentin and interfacial stress in a class II cavity restored with bulk-fill or conventional composite resins and the margin interfaces. Vertical slot class II cavities in the mesial face, with the gingival end in dentin, were prepared in 72 third molars, being divided into groups (n=24): G1-Tetric N-Ceram; G2-Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-Fill; G3-SonicFill. Clearfil SE Bond adhesive system was used in all groups. Half of the teeth in each group (n=12) were submitted to thermo-mechanical cycling (TMC). Restored teeth (n=9) were cut perpendicular to obtain beams, which were submitted to a mTBS test in an EMIC machine. The cervical margins in dentin of the restored teeth (n=3) were assessed using SEM through epoxy resin replicas as well as the section of the restoration. Interfacial stresses after load application were calculated by 2D finite element analysis. The mTBS means-MPa followed by different letters represent statistical difference by ANOVA and Games-Howell's test (p<0.05): Without TMC: G1-15.68±6.10a; G2-10.08±5.21ab; G3-7.98±3.76b. With TMC: G1-9.70±5.52a; G2-5.79±1.42a; G3-4.37±1.87a. Interfacial stress (MPa) was 4.4 for SonicFill, 3.9 for Tetric N-Ceram, and 3.5 for Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-Fill. SEM images showed continuous margins for all composite resin restorations. It was possible to conclude that SonicFill obtained a slightly higher interfacial stress and lower bond strength to dentin in comparison with Tetric N-Ceram and Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-Fill. Continuous margin interfaces were obtained for Tetric N-Ceram, Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-Fill, and SonicFill. However, voids were observed in the SonicFill restorations.