Abstract This study aimed to evaluate the depth of cure (DC), bond strength (BS), failure mode (FM) and nanoleakage (NL) of restorative systems containing low viscosity bulk fill, regular viscosity bulk fill and conventional composites in a 3 D dentin cavity model. Six restorative systems: [Adhesive: Ambar Universal/Composite resins: Opus Bulk Fill Flow – OBFF, Opus Bulk Fill – OBF and Liss (FGM)] and [Adhesive: Scotchbond Universal/Composite resins: Filtek Bulk Fill Flow – FBF, Filtek Bulk Fill – FB, and Filtek Z250 XT – XT (3 M ESPE)] were used. Conical cavities (n = 13) were prepared in bovine dentin and restored with composite. The DC (%) was analyzed calculating just the bottom-to-top microhardness ratio. The BS (MPa) was determined by push-out testing in the universal testing machine and the FM was analyzed using a stereomicroscope. The NL of silver nitrate was mapped using SEM images of the adhesive interface in additional specimens (n = 3). Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA/Tukey tests (α = 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences for the DC of the restorative systems. OBFF (11 ± 0.42) presented the highest mean of BS (MPa), while FB (2.61 ± 0.80) showed the lowest mean. Adhesive failures (86%) were predominant. The NL expression was visually similar among the restorative systems. All restorative systems seem to be able to obtain proper cure in 3D dentin cavity model. However, low viscosity bulk fill composites might improve the quality of restorations and provide better clinical longevity.

中文翻译：

---

3D 牙本质腔模型中低粘度和规则粘度填充复合材料的机械性能

摘要 本研究旨在评估包含低粘度散装填料、常规粘度散装填料和常规复合材料的修复系统的固化深度 (DC)、粘合强度 (BS)、失效模式 (FM) 和纳米渗漏 (NL)。牙本质腔模型。六种修复系统：[粘合剂：Ambar Universal/复合树脂：Opus Bulk Fill Flow – OBFF、Opus Bulk Fill – OBF 和 Liss (FGM)] 和 [粘合剂：Scotchbond Universal/复合树脂：Filtek Bulk Fill Flow – FBF、Filtek Bulk使用了 Fill – FB 和 Filtek Z250 XT – XT (3 M ESPE)]。在牛牙本质中制备锥形腔（n = 13）并用复合材料修复。分析 DC (%) 仅计算底部与顶部的显微硬度比。BS (MPa) 在万能试验机中通过推出试验确定，FM 使用立体显微镜进行分析。硝酸银的 NL 是使用附加试样 (n = 3) 中粘合剂界面的 SEM 图像绘制的。使用单向方差分析/Tukey 检验 (α = 0.05) 分析数据。修复系统的 DC 没有统计学上的显着差异。OBFF (11 ± 0.42) 表示 BS (MPa) 的最高平均值，而 FB (2.61 ± 0.80) 表示最低平均值。粘合失败 (86%) 占主导地位。NL 表达在修复系统之间在视觉上相似。所有修复系统似乎都能够在 3D 牙本质腔模型中获得适当的固化。然而，低粘度填充复合材料可能会提高修复体的质量并提供更好的临床寿命。05）。修复系统的 DC 没有统计学上的显着差异。OBFF (11 ± 0.42) 表示 BS (MPa) 的最高平均值，而 FB (2.61 ± 0.80) 表示最低平均值。粘合失败 (86%) 占主导地位。NL 表达在修复系统中在视觉上相似。所有修复系统似乎都能够在 3D 牙本质腔模型中获得适当的固化。然而，低粘度填充复合材料可能会提高修复体的质量并提供更好的临床寿命。05）。修复系统的 DC 没有统计学上的显着差异。OBFF (11 ± 0.42) 表示 BS (MPa) 的最高平均值，而 FB (2.61 ± 0.80) 表示最低平均值。粘合失败 (86%) 占主导地位。NL 表达在修复系统之间在视觉上相似。所有修复系统似乎都能够在 3D 牙本质腔模型中获得适当的固化。然而，低粘度填充复合材料可能会提高修复体的质量并提供更好的临床寿命。所有修复系统似乎都能够在 3D 牙本质腔模型中获得适当的固化。然而，低粘度填充复合材料可能会提高修复体的质量并提供更好的临床寿命。所有修复系统似乎都能够在 3D 牙本质腔模型中获得适当的固化。然而，低粘度填充复合材料可能会提高修复体的质量并提供更好的临床寿命。