Comparative Mechanical Properties of Bulk-Fill Resins

DOI: 10.4236/ojcm.2014.42013   PDF   HTML     6,690 Downloads   10,659 Views   Citations

Abstract

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.

Share and Cite:

Didem, A. , Gözde, Y. and Nurhan, Ö. (2014) Comparative Mechanical Properties of Bulk-Fill Resins. Open Journal of Composite Materials, 4, 117-121. doi: 10.4236/ojcm.2014.42013.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] Salerno, M., Derchi, G., Thorat, S., Ceseracciu, L., Ruffilli, R. and Barone, A.C. (2011) Surface Morphology and Mechanical Properties of New-Generation Flowable Resin Composites for Dental Restoration. Dental Materials, 27, 1221-1228.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.08.596
[2] Ozel, E., Korkmaz, Y., Attar, N. and Karabulut, E. (2008) Effect of One-Step Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness of Different Flowable Restorative Materials. Dental Materials Journal, 27, 755-764.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4012/dmj.27.755
[3] Ilie, N. and Hickel, R. (2011) Investigations on a Methacrylate-Based Flowable Composite Based on the SDRTM Technology. Dental Materials, 27, 348-355.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.11.014
[4] Roggendorf, M.J., Kramer, N., Appelt, A., Naumann, M. and Frankenberger, R. (2011) Marginal Quality of Flowable 4-mm Base vs. Conventionally Layered Resin Composite. Journal of Dentistry, 39, 643-647.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2011.07.004
[5] Boaro, L.C., Goncalves, F., Guimaraes, T.C., Ferracane, J.L., Versluis, A. and Braga, R.R. (2010) Polymerization Stress, Shrinkage and Elastic Modulus of Current Low-Shrinkage Restorative Composites. Dental Materails, 26, 1144-1150.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.08.003
[6] www.sonicfill.kerrdental.com
[7] Heintze, S.D. and Zimmerli, B. (2011) Relevance of in Vitro Tests of Adhesive and Composite Dental Materials. A Review in 3 Parts. Part 3: In Vitro Tests of Adhesive Systems. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed, 121, 1024-1040.
[8] Silva, C.M. and Dias, K.R. (2009) Compressive Strength of Esthetic Restorative Materials Polymerized with Quartz-Tungsten-Halogen Light and Blue LED. Brazillian Dental Journal, 20, 54-57.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402009000100009
[9] Gomec, Y., Dorter, C., Dabanoglu, A. and Koray, F. (2005) Effect of Resin-Based Material Combination on the Compressive and the Flexural Strength. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 32, 122-127.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01394.x
[10] Uctasli, M.B., Bala, O. and Güllü, A.V. (2004) Surface Roughness of Flowable and Packable Composite Resin Materials after Finishing with Abrasive Discs. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 31, 1197-1202.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01341.x
[11] Christensen, G.J. (2012) Advantages and Challenges of Bulk-Fill Resins. Clinicians Report, 5, 1-5.
[12] Ilie, N. and Hickel, R. (2009) Investigations on Mechanical Behaviour of Dental Composites.Clinical Oral Investigations, 13, 427-438.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0258-4
[13] Burgess, J. and Cakir, D. (2010) Comparative Properties of Low-Shrinkage Composite Resins. Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry, 31, 10-15.
[14] Czasch, P. and Ilie, N. (2012) In Vitro Comparison of Mechanical Properties and Degree of Cure of Bulk Fill Composites. Clinical Oral Investigations, 17, 227-235.
[15] Ersoy, M., Civelek, A., L’Hotelier, E., Say, E.C. and Soyman, M. (2004) Physical Properties of Different Composites. Dental Materials Journal, 23, 278-283.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4012/dmj.23.278
[16] International Standard ISO 4049 (2000) Polymer-Based Filling, Restorative and Luting Materials. Technical Committee 106-Dentistry. International Standards Organization, Geneva.
[17] Attar, N., Tam, L.E. and McComb, D. (2003) Flow, Strength, Stiffness and Radiopacity of Flowable Resin Composites. Journal of Canadian Dental Associations, 69, 516-521.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.