Comparison of Composite Placement Techniques by Recently Qualified Dental Practitioners.

Objectives: To evaluate the placement of composite materials by new graduates using three alternative placement techniques.Methods: A cohort of 34 recently qualified graduates were asked to restore class II interproximal cavities in plastic teeth using three different techniques.<br/><br/>(i) A conventional incremental filling technique (Herculite XRV) using increments no larger than 2-mm with an initial layer on the cervical floor of the box of 1-mm.<br/>(ii) Flowable bulk fill technique (Dentsply SDR) bulk fill placement in a 3-mm layer followed by an incremental fill of a microhybrid resin<br/>(iii) Bulk fill (Kerr Sonicfill) which involved restorations placed in a 5-mm layer.<br/><br/>The operators were instructed in each technique, didactically and with a hands-on demonstration, prior to restoration placement.<br/>All restorations were cured according to manufacturer’s recommendations. Each participant restored 3 teeth, 1 tooth per treatment technique.<br/>The restorations were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria to assess both the marginal adaptation and the surface texture of the restorations. Blind evaluations were carried out independently by two examiners with the aid of magnification (loupes X2.5). Examiners were standardized prior to evaluation.<br/>Results: Gaps between the tooth margins and the restoration or between the layers of the restoration were found in 13 of Group (i), 3 of Group (ii), and 4 of Group (iii)<br/>Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference between the incrementally filled group (i) and the flowable bulk-fill group (ii) (p=0.0043) and between the incrementally filled (i) and the bulk fill groups (iii) (p=0.012) and no statistical difference (p=0.69) between the bulk filled groups Conclusions: Bulk fill techniques may result in a more satisfactory seal of the cavity margins when restoring with composite.<br/>