Abstract:

Objectives: The main objective of the study was to evaluate and compared the surface roughness and microhardness of three bulk-fill (ACTIVA Bioactive Restorative, SonicFill 2 SingleFill and SDR Flow Plus) and one conventional (G-aenial Posterior) composite resin at different depths. Materials and Methods: Eighty disc-shaped composite resins (6mm diameter, 2mm height) were polymerized as recommended and then subjected to the appropriate finishing and polishing procedure. Transparent strips were placed between the samples before polymerization to evaluate the hardness at different depths (0-2mm and 2-4mm) of the bulk-fill composites. Microhardness was evaluated with a Vickers hardness tester and roughness was evaluated with an optical profilometer. The ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparisons were performed for the statistical evaluation of microhardness and ANOVA was performed for roughness. Results: No statistically significant difference was determined between the composite materials in respect of surface roughness (p=0.336). It was generally observed that as the layer thickness increased in all the materials, the hardness values decreased (p<0.0001). SF was determined to have higher microhardness values in all the layers compared to the other samples (p<0.001). Conclusions: While SF had the highest microhardness values in different layers, SDR was of equivalent value to a conventional composite. However, the hardness values of ACT in all layers were statistically significantly lower than conventional and other bulk-fillers.

Keywords: