Top

Clinical Oral Investigations

Published in:

01-11-2016 | Original Article

Comparison of flowable bulk-fill and flowable resin-based composites: an in vitro analysis

Authors: Frank Engelhardt, Sebastian Hahnel, Verena Preis, Martin Rosentritt

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 8/2016

Abstract

Objectives

Flowable bulk-fill resin bonded composites (RBCs) are supposed to show improved abrasion resistance and fracture toughness in comparison to flowable conventional RBCs.

Materials and methods

Specimens of eight flowable RBCs (5× flowable conventional, 3× flowable bulk-fill) were fabricated for testing relative fracture toughness (SENB), relative three-body wear, the Vickers hardness, glass transition Tg (differential scanning calorimetry; DSC) and filler mass fraction (thermal gravimetric analysis; TGA). A laboratory veneering composite was used as a reference. Fracture toughness and wear values were related to this reference. Scanning electron microscope images were evaluated for fraktographical and microstructural investigations. Statistical analyses were performed using one-way Anova, the Bonferroni post hoc test and the Pearson correlation test (α =0.05).

Results

Relative fracture toughness varied between 0.64 and 1.34 (1.00 = 1.69 MPam½) and relative wear rates between 1.24 and 0.55 (1.00 = 134 μm). The Vickers hardness ranged between 14.4 and 57.2 HV. TGA showed filler fractions between 55 and 77 wt.%. Tg values varied between −67.8 and −40.9 °C. None of the tests identified clear differences between flowable bulk-fills or conventional flowable RBCs. The Pearson correlation coefficient (cc) showed significant correlations (cc > 0.583; p < 0.001) between relative fracture toughness and hardness or filler content. There was a significant correlation (cc = 0.757; p = 0.005) between relative wear and glass transition temperature or between filler fraction and the Vickers hardness (cc > 0.702; p < 0.001). For all filler sizes breakdown was found, where clusters and pre-polymerized particles were partly disintegrated.

Conclusions

Flowable bulk-fill RBCs showed no improved abrasion resistance and fracture toughness in comparison to flowable conventional RBCs.

Clinical relevance

Differences in the properties were higher between the individual materials than between the material groups. Therefore the appropriate material selection may be essential for a clinical success.

Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K, van Dijken JWV, Funegårdh U, Lindberg A, Nilsson M (2009) Selection of dental materials and longevity of replaced restorations in public dental health clinics in northern Sweden. J Dent 37:673–678CrossRefPubMed

Ilie N, Stark K (2014) Curing behaviour of high-viscosity bulk-fill composites. J Dent 42:977–985CrossRefPubMed

Bucuta S, Ilie N (2014) Light transmittance and micro-mechanical properties of bulk fill vs. conventional resin based composites. Clin Oral Invest 18:1991–2000CrossRef

Price RB, Dérand T, Sedarous M, Andreou P, Loney RW (2000) Effect of distance on the power density from two light guides. J Esthet Dent 12:320–327CrossRefPubMed

Lohbauer U, Rahiotis C, Krämer N, Petschelt A, Eliades G (2005) The effect of different light-curing units on fatigue behavior and degree of conversion of a resin composite. Dent Mater 21:608–615CrossRefPubMed

Lohbauer U, Belli R, Ferracane JL (2013) Factors involved in mechanical fatigue degradation of dental resin composites. J Dent Res 92:584–591CrossRefPubMed

Rencz A, Hickel R (2012) Curing efficiency of modern LED units. Clin Oral Invest 16:173–179CrossRef

Van Dijken J, Pallesen U (2014) A randomized controlled three year evaluation of “bulk-filled” posterior resin restorations based on stress decreasing resin technology. Dent Mater 30:245–251CrossRef

Da Rosa R, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA, Lognerico AD, Demarco FF (2006) A clinical evaluation of posterior restorations: 17 year findings. J Dent 34:427–435CrossRef

10.

Ferracane JL (2013) Resin-based composite performance: are there some things we can’t predict? Dent Mater 29:51–58CrossRefPubMed

11.

Bayne SC (2012) Review: correlation of clinical performance with ‘in vitro tests’ of restorative dental materials that use polymer-based matrices. Dent Mater 28:52–71CrossRefPubMed

12.

Ferracane JL (2006) Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks. Dent Mater 22:211–222CrossRefPubMed

13.

Czasch P, Ilie N (2013) In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites. Clin Oral Invest 17:227–235CrossRef

14.

Ilie N, Bucuta S, Draenert M (2013) Bulk-fill resin-based composites: an in vitro assessment of their mechanical performance. Oper Dent 38:618–625CrossRefPubMed

15.

Ilie N, Rencz A, Hickel R (2013) Investigations towards nano-hybrid resin-based composites. Clin Oral Invest 17:185–193CrossRef

16.

Roulet JF, Price R (2014) Light curing—guidelines for practitioners—a consensus statement from the 2014 symposium on light curing in dentistry. Held at Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada. J Adhes Dent 16:303–304PubMed

17.

De Gee A, Pallav P, Davidson C (1986) Effect of abrasion medium on wear of stress-bearing composites and amalgam in vitro. J Dent Res 65:654–658CrossRefPubMed

18.

De Gee A, Pallav P (1994) Occlusal wear simulation with the ACTA wear machine. J Dent 22:21–27CrossRef

19.

ISO 6507: 2005–12 Metallic materials—Vickers hardness test. Beuth Verlag. Berlin 2005

20.

Manhart J, Kunzelmann K, Chen H, Hickel R (2000) Mechanical properties and wear behavior of light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater 16:33–40CrossRefPubMed

21.

Mesquita RV, Axmann D, Geis-Gerstorfer J (2006) Dynamic visco-elastic properties of dental composite resins. Dent Mater 22:258–267CrossRefPubMed

22.

Belli R, Petschelt A, Lohbauer U (2014) Are linear elastic material properties relevant predictors of the cyclic fatigue resistance of dental resin composites? Dent Mater 30:381–391CrossRefPubMed

23.

Cock DJ, Watts DC (1985) Time-dependent deformation of composite restorative materials in compression. J Dent Res 64:147–150CrossRefPubMed

24.

Sabbagh J, Vreven J, Leloup G (2002) Dynamic and static moduli of elasticity of resin-based materials. Dent Mater 18:64–71CrossRefPubMed

25.

Alshali RZ, Silikas N, Satterthwaite JD (2013) Degree of conversion of bulk-fill compared to conventional resin-composites at two time intervals. Dent Mater 29:e213–e217CrossRefPubMed

26.

El-Damanhoury H, Platt J (2014) Polymerization shrinkage stress kinetics and related properties of bulk-fill resin composites. Oper Dent 39:374–382CrossRefPubMed

27.

Flury S, Hayoz S, Peutzfeldt A, Hüsler J, Lussi A (2012) Depth of cure of resin composites: is the ISO 4049 method suitable for bulk fill materials? Dent Mater 28:521–528CrossRefPubMed

28.

Flury S, Peutzfeldt A, Lussi A (2014) Influence of increment thickness on microhardness and dentin bond strength of bulk fill resin composites. Dent Mater 30:1104–1112CrossRefPubMed

29.

Leprince J, Palin WM, Vanacker J, Sabbagh J, Devaux J, Leloup G (2014) Physico-mechanical characteristics of commercially available bulk-fill composites. J Dent 42:993–1000CrossRefPubMed

30.

Dickens S, Stansbury J, Choi K, Floyd C (2003) Photopolymerization kinetics of methacrylate dental resins. Macromolecules 36:6043–6053CrossRef

31.

Sideridou I, Tserki V, Papanastasiou G (2002) Effect of chemical structure on degree of conversion in light-cured dimethacrylate-based dental resins. Biomaterials 23:1819–1829CrossRefPubMed

32.

Morgan DS, Kalachandra Shobha H, Gunduz N, Stejskal E (2000) Analysis of a dimethacrylate copolymer (Bis-GMA and TEGDMA) network by DSC and C solution and solid-state NMR spectroscopy. Biomaterials 21:1897–1903CrossRefPubMed

33.

Barkmeier W, Takamizawa T, Erickson R, Tsujimoto A, Latta M, Miyazaki M (2015) Localized and generalized simulated wear of resin composites. Oper Dent 40–3:322–335CrossRef

34.

Zorzin J, Maier E, Harre S, Fey T, Belli R, Lohbauer U, Petschelt A, Taschner M (2015) Bulk-fill resin composites: polymerization properties and extended light curing. Dent Mater 31:293–301CrossRefPubMed

35.

Bayne SC, Taylor D, Heymann H (1992) Protection hypothesis for composite wear. Dent Mater 8:305–309CrossRefPubMed

36.

Finlay N, Hahnel S, Dowling AH, Fleming G (2013) The in vitro wear behavior of experimental resin-based composites derived from a commercial formulation. Dent Mater 29:365–374CrossRefPubMed

37.

Beun S, Glorieux T, Devaux J, Vreven J, Leloup G (2007) Characterization of nanofilled compared to universal and microfilled composites. Dent Mater 23:51–59CrossRefPubMed

38.

Beun S, Bailly C, Devaux J, Leloup G (2012) Physical, mechanical and rheological characterization of resin-based pit and fissure sealants compared to flowable resin composites. Dent Mater 28:349–359CrossRefPubMed

39.

Leprince J, Palin WM, Mullier T, Devaux J, Vreven J, Leloup G (2010) Investigating filler morphology and mechanical properties of new low-shrinkage resin composite types. J Oral Rehabil 37:364–376CrossRefPubMed

40.

Rastelli AN, Jacomassi DP, Faloni AP, Queiroz TP, Rojas SS, Bernardi MI, Bagnato VS, Hernandes AC (2012) The filler content of the dental composite resins and their influence on different properties. Microsc Res Tech 75:758–765CrossRefPubMed

41.

Bayne SC, Heymann HO, Swift EJ (1994) Update on dental composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 125:687–701CrossRefPubMed

42.

Hosseinalipour M, Javadpour J, Rezaie H, Dadras T, Hayati AN (2010) Investigation of mechanical properties of experimental Bis-GMA/TEGDMA dental composite resins containing various mass fractions of silica nanoparticles. J Prosthodont 19:112–117CrossRefPubMed

43.

Kyo-Han K, Joo LO, Osamu O (2002) The effect of filler loading and morphology on the mechanical properties of contemporary composites. J Prosthet Dent 87:642–648CrossRef

44.

Ikejima I, Nomoto R, McCabe J (2003) Shear punch strength and flexural strength of model composites with varying filler volume fraction. Particle size and silanation. Dent Mater 19:206–211CrossRefPubMed

45.

Suzuki S, Leinfelder KF, Kawai K, Tsuchitani Y (1995) Effect of particle variation on wear rates of posterior composites. Am J Dent 8:173–178PubMed

46.

Topcu FT, Erdemir U, Sahinkesen G, Yildiz E, Uslan I, Acikel C (2010) Evaluation of microhardness, surface roughness, and wear behavior of different types of resin composites polymerized with two different light sources. J Biomed Mater Res 92:470–480

47.

Tomaszewska IM, Kearns JO, Ilie N, Fleming G (2015) Bulk fill restoratives: to cap or not to cap—that is the question? J Dent 43:309–316CrossRefPubMed

Title: Comparison of flowable bulk-fill and flowable resin-based composites: an in vitro analysis
Authors: Frank Engelhardt
Sebastian Hahnel
Verena Preis
Martin Rosentritt
Publication date: 01-11-2016
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 8/2016
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1700-4

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Comparison of flowable bulk-fill and flowable resin-based composites: an in vitro analysis

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2016

Erratum to: Effect of mold type, diameter, and uncured composite removal method on depth of cure

Stain removal effect of novel papain- and bromelain-containing gels applied to enamel

Vascularization after treatment of gingival recession defects with platelet-rich fibrin or connective tissue graft

The resection angle in apical surgery: a CBCT assessment

Effects of zoledronic acid and geranylgeraniol on the cellular behaviour and gene expression of primary human alveolar osteoblasts

Lactate as a predictive marker for tumor recurrence in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) post radiation: a prospective study over 15 years