Comparative Mechanical Properties of Bulk-Fill Resins

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the flexural and compressive strengths of a new sonicactivated bulk-fill system (Sonicfill) with other bulk-fill resins and a universal posterior composite resin. Materials and Methods: A low-stress flowable base resin material (SDR), a bulk-fill composite resin (Tetric Evo Ceram), a universal posterior composite (GC G-aenial), and the Sonicfill system were compared. The specimens were prepared for each group following ISO Standard 4049 (flexural strength) and ADA 27 specifications (compressive strength). One-way variance analysis and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to determine the statistical differences among groups (p 0.05). Results: The Sonicfill system presented significantly higher compressive strength than other groups (p < 0.001). For flexural strength results, although the Sonicfill system showed the highest values, no statistically significant differences were determined among all groups (p > 0.001). Conclusion: Due to the ability to place restorations with single increment and ease of use, the Sonicfill system can be an alternative for posterior restorations.

Properties of a Bulk-Fill Flowable Composite Resin with High Depth of Cure

Introduction: Dental composite resin materials are being increasingly used for a variety of purposes and more recently as a dentine replacement material. Objectives: SDR (Dentsply) is a flowable, high-resin composite material designed to minimise the effect of the high shrinkage through the use of a flexible monomer. However the resultant properties of this material may be a factor that affects the clinical performance. Methods: Tests were carried out on SDR and two other commonly used resin-based composite materials (Herculite XRV, Kerr and Spectrum TPH, Dentsply) including: depth of cure according to ISO 4049, degree of cure using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), compressive strength using a Universal testing Machine, water uptake, interaction with Coca-ColaTM and analysis of thermal transitions using Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC). Results: SDR exhibited a high depth of cure at 4.0 mm and no difference in degree of cure in comparison with the other two dental composites. Compressive strength results varied between materials but were significantly lower for SDR (P < 0.05). Water uptake was similar for all materials but elution was significantly greater for SDR and interaction with Coca-Cola showed greatest change for SDR. Conclusions: There are some statistically significant variations between the physical properties of the materials which are attributed to the monomer type and lower amount of filler in the flowable composite that may explain the published clinical outcomes.

Damage and Fatigue Failure of Conventional and Bulk-Filled Resin Composites

Objectives: Resin-based composites are the most widely used dental restorative materials. Bulk-fill resin composites are of rising interest as they can be clinically applied in thicker increments compared to conventional composites. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the flexural fatigue strength of a conventional and bulk-filled resin composite placed incrementally or non-incrementally. Methods: Resin composite specimens were fabricated using either a conventional (Brilliant EverGlow?) or a bulk-fill (Fill-Up!TM) resin composite by either non-incremental filling (2 × 2 × 25 mm3) or in increments of (1 × 2 × 25 mm3). Specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 h or thermocycled for 5000 cycles. The static flexural strength (σ), flexural fatigue limit (FFL) after 105 cycles and post-fatigue flexural strength (PFσ) were measured. Data were analyzed using ANOVA, with a post-hoc Tukey’s test to compare mean FFL (p σ and PFσ compared to conventional composites regardless of incremental cure or thermocycling (p σ and FFL for conventional composites but not bulk-filled composites. There was no significant difference in PFσ compared to σ after 24 h storage, but a significant increase in PFσ after thermocycling (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The type of composite rather than incremental placement had a greater effect on flexural strength, suggesting that operator placement technique had less influence than material selection. Thermocycling in combination with cyclic loading caused a strengthening effect in the composites, likely due to the absorption and dissipation of stresses, thereby enhancing resistance to fracture.