Objectives: The polymerization shrinkage of methacrylate-based composites is among the most important causes of failure of composite restorations. The manufacturers claim that bulk-fill composites have a lower polymerization shrinkage than conventional composites. This study aimed to assess the polymerization shrinkage of five bulk-fill composites in comparison with a conventional composite. Materials and Methods: In this in-vitro experimental study, composite discs (n=30) were fabricated using everX Posterior (EXP), Filtek Bulk-Fill Posterior (FBP), SonicFill 2 (SF2), Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-Fill (TNB), X-tra fil (XF), and Filtek Z250 conventional composite at the center of a metal ring bonded to a microscope slide and were covered with a coverslip. This assembly was transferred to a linear variable differential transformer (LVDT). Light-curing (1200 mW/cm2) was performed from underneath the slide for 30 seconds. The deflecting disc method and LVDT were used to assess the dimensional changes of the samples (indicative of polymerization shrinkage) at 1, 30, 60, and 1800 seconds following the onset of light irradiation. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s test. Results: The groups were significantly different regarding polymerization shrinkage (P<0.002). The polymerization shrinkage of the tested composites following the onset of light irradiation ranged from 0.19 to 3.03. EXP showed a significantly higher polymerization shrinkage than other composites at 30, 60, and 1800 seconds after light irradiation, while XF showed the lowest polymerization shrinkage at the aforementioned time points. Conclusions: The tested bulk-fill composites had a polymerization shrinkage similar to that of the conventional composite.

Background: Limited curing depth and its effect on the degree of conversion are among the challenges of working with light-cure composite resins. The use of bulk-fill composites is one strategy to overcome these limitations. Methods: Ever X Posterior (EXP), Filtek Bulk-Fill Posterior (FBP), Sonic Fill 2 (SF2), Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-Fill (TNB), and X-tra Fil (XF) bulk-fill and Filtek Z250 conventional composite were evaluated in this in vitro experimental study. Six samples for the assessment of microhardness and three samples for the evaluation of DC were fabricated of each composite. After light curing and polishing, the samples were incubated at 37°C for 24 hours. Microhardness was measured by a Vickers hardness tester three times and the mean value was calculated. DC of the top and bottom surfaces was determined using Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR). Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test. Results: Microhardness and DC were significantly different among the groups (P<0.001). XF and Z250 equally showed the highest bottom-to-top surface microhardness ratio (0.97 ± 0.01) and significantly higher DC in the top (P<0.001) and bottom (P<0.005) surfaces compared to other groups. TNB showed the lowest microhardness ratio (0.88 ± 0.04) and DC (68.66 ± 1.52 and 61.00 ± 2.00); the difference in DC of the bottom surface was statistically significant (P<0.003). Conclusion: It appears that bulk-fill composites evaluated in this study are adequately polymerized at 4 mm depth. Their DC was optimal and within the range of conventional composites.

Background Recently, the application of bulk-fill composite resins has increased significantly. Attrition wear and the consequently increased surface roughness of composite resins are among the causes of restoration failure in the posterior teeth. This study aimed to compare the attrition wear and surface roughness of four types of bulk-fill composite resins compared to a conventional composite resin. Methods EverX-Posterior, X-tra fil, SonicFill 2, and Filtek Bulk-Fill composites (bulk-fill) and Z250 composite (conventional resin composite) were evaluated. Thirty cylindrical specimens (n = 6) were weighed and monitored for 24 h until their weight was stabilized. The primary surface roughness of the specimens was measured by a profilometer. The specimens were then subjected to attrition wear in a chewing simulator. Next, the specimens were weighed, and the surface roughness was measured again. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test at P < 0.05 significance level. Results According to one-way ANOVA, the difference in weight loss was significant among the groups (P = 0.004) but the difference in surface roughness of the groups was not significant after the attrition wear (P > 0.05). Tukey’s post-hoc test showed that the weight loss of bulk-fill composites was not significantly different from that of Z250 conventional composite after the attrition wear (P > 0.05). Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, it appears that the tested bulk-fill composite resins are comparable to the conventional composite regarding their attrition wear, increased surface roughness, and weight loss.