Effects of flowable liners on the shrinkage vectors of bulk-fill composites

OBJECTIVES: This investigation evaluated the effect of flowable liners beneath a composite restoration applied via different methods on the pattern of shrinkage vectors. METHODS: Forty molars were divided into five groups (n = 8), and cylindrical cavities were prepared and bonded with a self-etch adhesive (AdheSe). Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TBF) was used as the filling material in all cavities. The flowable liners Tetric EvoFlow Bulk Fill (TEF) and SDR were used to line the cavity floor. In gp1-TBF, the flowable composite was not used. TEF was applied in a thin layer in gp2-fl/TEF + TBF and gp3-fl/TEF + TBFincremental. Two flowable composites with a layer thickness of 2 mm were compared in gp4-fl/TEF + TBF and gp5-fl/SDR + TBF. TEF and SDR were mixed with radiolucent glass beads, while air bubbles inherently present in TBF served as markers. Each material application was scanned twice by micro-computed tomography before and after light curing. Scans were subjected to image segmentation for calculation of the shrinkage vectors. RESULTS: The absence of a flowable liner resulted in the greatest shrinkage vectors. A thin flowable liner (gp2-fl/TEF + TBFbulk) resulted in larger overall shrinkage vectors for the whole restoration than a thick flowable liner (gp4-fl/TEF + TBF). A thin flowable liner and incremental application (gp3-fl/TEF + TBFincremental) yielded the smallest shrinkage vectors. SDR yielded slightly smaller shrinkage vectors for the whole restoration than that observed in gp4-fl/TEF + TBF. CONCLUSIONS: Thick flowable liner layers had a more pronounced stress-relieving effect than thin layers regardless of the flowable liner type. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: It is recommended to apply a flowable liner (thin or thick) beneath bulk-fill composites, preferably incrementally.