Background. Restoration techniques affect shrinkage stress and depth of cure. The authors tested cuspal deflection and depth of cure resulting from the use of different techniques (bulk, incremental, bulk/transtooth illumination) and two resin-based composites (deep curing and conventional). Methods. The authors restored extracted teeth with deep-curing X-tra fil (VOCO, Cuxhaven, Germany) (by using bulk and incremental techniques) and Filtek Supreme Plus (3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minn.) (by using bulk, incremental and bulk/transtooth- illumination techniques). The sample size for each technique was five. They determined cuspal deflections as changes in buccal and lingual surfaces before and after restoration. To determine the extent of cure, they measured hardness 0.5 to 3.5 millimeters deep on the sectioned restorations. Results. The authors found no difference in cuspal deflection between filling techniques within the same materials (P > .05). They found no difference in hardness for X-tra fil at any depth with either the bulk or the incremental technique (P > .05). Filtek Supreme Plus had higher hardness values at depths of less than 1.5 mm with the bulk/transtooth-illumination technique, whereas the bulk technique resulted in lower hardness values at depths of 2.0 mm and below (P < .05). Conclusions. Cuspal deflection was not affected by filling techniques. X-tra fil cured up to a depth of at least 3.5 mm; Filtek Supreme Plus had lower curing values below a depth of 2 mm. The transtooth-illumination technique improved curing depth for restorations placed in bulk. Clinical Implications. When using resin-based composite restorative materials, clinicians should be more concerned about the effect of filling techniques on curing depth than about how these techniques affect shrinkage stresses.
- Cuspal flexure
- Transtooth illumination