Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5933/JKAPD.2016.43.4.365

Comparison of the Mechanical Properties between Bulk-fill and Conventional Composites  

Noh, Taehwan (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Song, Eunju (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Park, Soyoung (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Pyo, Aeri (Department of Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Kwon, Yonghoon (Department of Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Kim, Jiyeon (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Kim, Shin (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Jeong, Taesung (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Publication Information
Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry / v.43, no.4, 2016 , pp. 365-373 More about this Journal
Abstract
Composites are the most useful restorative material. However, composites have some disadvantages such as polymerization shrinkage, long working time, and susceptibility to water and contamination, which are stood out more especially when treating children. To solve these problems, bulk-fill composites have been developed. The aim of this study is to compare mechanical properties of bulk-fill and conventional composites. Bulk-fill composites (SureFil SDR flow (SDR), Tetric N-Ceram bulk fill (TBF)) and conventional composites (Filtek Z-350 (Z-350), Unifil Flow (UF), Unifil Loflo Plus (UL)) were used. The Vickers hardness tester was used to measure the microhardness of materials, and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy was used to measure the degree of conversion. Polymerization shrinkage was measured by using a linometer. Flexural and compressive properties were measured by using the universal testing machine. Data were statistically analyzed by ANOVA and Scheffe's post hoc test. The level of significance was set to p < 0.05. Most conventional composites showed higher microhardness than bulk-fill composites. However, bulk-fill composites showed a higher top/bottom microhardness ratio than conventional composites. Bulk-fill composites showed a higher top/bottom degree of conversion ratio than conventional composites. The polymerization shrinkage was highest in UL and lowest in Z-350. The polymerization shrinkage of flowable composites was higher than that of non flowable composites. The compressive properties were highest in Z-350 and lowest in SDR and UL. In terms of flexural properties, Z-350 was the highest. However, none of the bulk-fill composites exhibited mechanical properties as good as those of conventional composites. Nonetheless, the ratio of microhardness and degree of conversion, which are important properties of bulk filling, were higher in bulk-fill composites. Therefore, the bulk-fill composites might be considered suitable restorative materials in pediatric dentistry.
Keywords
Bulk-fill composites; Microhardness; Degree of conversion; Polymerization shrinkage;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Rueggeberg FA : From vulcanite to vinyl, a history of resins in restorative dentistry. J Prosthet Dent, 87:364-379, 2002.   DOI
2 Kwon YH, Park JK, Kim JH, et al. : Polymerization shrinkage, flexural and compression properties of low-shrinkage dental resin composites. Dent Mater, 33:104-110, 2014.   DOI
3 Gee AF, Feilzer AJ, Davidson CL : True linear polymerization shrinkage of unfilled resins and composites determined with a linometer. Dent Mater, 9:11-14, 1993.   DOI
4 Krejci I, Planinic M, Bouillaguet S, et al. : Resin composite shrinkage and marginal adaptation with different pulse-delay light curing protocols. Eur J Oral Sci, 113:531-536, 2005.   DOI
5 Versluis A, Douglas WH, Sakaguchi RL, et al. : Does an incremental filling technique reduce polymerization shrinkage stresses? J Dent Res, 75:871-878, 1996.   DOI
6 Kim IY, Kim JM, Shin Kim, et al. : 5 years evaluation of composite resin restoration on permanent first molar in children. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent, 35:110-117, 2008.
7 Benetti AR, Havndrup-Pedersen C, Pallesen U, et al. : Bulk-fill resin composites: polymerization contraction, depth of cure, and gap formation. Oper Dent, 40:190-200, 2015.   DOI
8 Christensen GJ : Advantages and challenges of Bulk-fill resins. Clinicians Report, 5:1-2, 2012.
9 Jang JH, Park SH, Hwang IN : Polymerization shrinkage and depth of cure of bulk-fill composites and highly filled flowable resin. Oper Dent, 40:172-180, 2015.   DOI
10 Ilie N, Bucuta S, Draenert M : Bulk-fill Resin-based Composites: An In Vitro Assessment of Their Mechanical Performance. Oper Dent, 38:618-625, 2013.   DOI
11 Craig RG : Chemistry, composition, and properties of composite resins. Dent Clin North Am, 25:219-239, 1981.
12 Par M, Gamulin O, Tarle Z, et al. : Effect of temperature on post-cure polymerization of bulk-fill composites. J Dent, 42:1255-1260, 2014.   DOI
13 Bucuta S, Ilie N : Light transmittance and micromechanical properties of bulk fill vs conventional resin based composites. Clin Oral Investig, 18:1991-2000, 2014.   DOI
14 Roulet JF, Walti C : Influence of oral fluid on composite resin and glass-ionomer cement. J Prosthet Dent, 52:182-189, 1984.   DOI
15 Ilie N, Schoner C, Hickel R, et al. : An in-vitro assessment of the shear bond strength of bulk-fill resin composite to permanent and deciduous teeth. J Dent, 42:850-855, 2014.   DOI
16 Ferracane JL : Resin-based composite performance: are there some things we can't predict? Dent Mater, 29:51-58, 2013.   DOI
17 Alshali RZ, Silikas N, Satterthwaite JD : Degree of conversion of bulk-fill compared to conventional resin-composites at two time intervals. Dent Mater, 29:e213-e217, 2013.   DOI
18 de Gee AJ, ten Harkel-Hagenaar E, Davidson CL : Color dye for identification of incompletely cured composite resins. J Prosthet Dent, 52:626-631, 1984.   DOI
19 Sideridou I, Tserki V, Papanastasiou G : Effect of chemical structure on degree of conversion in lightcured dimethacrylate-based dental resins. Biomater, 23:1819-1829, 2002.   DOI
20 Rodrigues Junior SA, Zanchi CH, Demarco FF, et al. : Flexural strength and modulus of elasticity of different types of resin-based composites. Braz Oral Res, 21:16-21, 2007.
21 Ilie N, Hickel R : Investigations on a methacrylatebased flowable composite based on the SDR technology. Dent Mater, 27:348-355, 2011.   DOI
22 Khatri CA, Stansbury JW, Antonucci JM, et al. : Synthesis, characterization and evaluation of urethane derivatives of Bis-GMA. Dent Mater, 19:584-588, 2003.   DOI
23 Zivko-Babic J, Panduric J, Jakovac M, et al. : Bite force in subjects with complete dentition. Coll Antropol, 26:293-302, 2002.
24 Mountain G, Wood D, Toumba J : Bite force measurement in children with primary dentition. Int J Paediatr Dent, 21:112-118, 2011.   DOI
25 Campos EA, Ardu S, Krejci I, et al. : Marginal adaptation of class II cavities restored with bulk-fill composites. J Dent, 42:575-581, 2014.   DOI
26 Lee HB, Seo HW, Park HW, et al. : Evaluation of shear bond strength and microleakage of bulk-fill resin composite. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent, 42:281-290, 2015.   DOI