Bulk‐Fill Flowable Composite Resins

Walter, Ricardo

doi:10.1111/jerd.12011

Cited by 32 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Bulk-fill composites reduce the chair-side time and have less risk of air entrapment and moisture contamination. 4 Various bulk-fill materials depending on their composition, viscosity, and flow ability have different physical and mechanical properties. Advances led to the addition of fiber in normal conventional dental composites to enhance their physical and mechanical properties, so that the stress transfer from the matrix to the fiber depends on the fiber length and diameter to resist fracture of restoration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Shear Bond Strength and Microleakage of Various Bulk-fill Bioactive Dentin substitutes: An in vitro Study

Alkhudhairy¹,

Ahmad²

2016

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:Various bulk-fill materials depending on their composition, viscosity, and flow ability have different physical and mechanical properties. The aim of this in vitro study was to determine and compare the shear bond strength and microleakage properties of activa restorative with other bulk-fill restorative materials surefil (SDR), Biodentine, ever X posterior. Materials and methods:Forty permanent premolars were selected for shear bond strength, and 20 permanent premolars were selected with class II cavities on mesial and distal side for microleakage. Universal testing device was used to assess the shear bond strength. Microleakage was checked using dye penetration method under a stereomicroscope. Mean and standard deviation values were calculated from the recorded values. Intergroup comparison was done by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by pairwise comparison using Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) post hoc test. Results:The mean shear bond strength was highest for SDR surefil followed by Ever X posterior, Bioactive restorative, and Biodentine respectively. In this study, SDR (surefil) showed better shear bond strength and better microleakage properties compared with the other test materials (F = 186.7157, p < 0.05). Conclusion:The result of this study showed that flowable and fiber-reinforced composites have better shear bond strength and microleakage properties.Clinical significance: Flowable bulk-fill composite resins can be used as dentin substitutes because of its superior properties.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Shear Bond Strength and Microleakage of Various Bulk-fill Bioactive Dentin substitutes: An in vitro Study

Alkhudhairy¹,

Ahmad²

2016

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For these reasons, the introduction of the bulk-fill composites has aimed to solve the problems faced by incremental placement techniques of the conventional type. The advantage of the so-called "bulk fill" composite material is that it can be placed in a single layer of 4mmthickness as a bulk and cured in one step unlike the incremental fill technique [7,8]. Using this type of composite resin is easier and faster than the incremental type, decreased moisture contamination and air bubbles.…”

Section: Introductionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Study on The Structure, Physical Properties and Hardness Indentation of a Bulk Fill & An Incremental Composite Resin Restorative Materials

Elsherbeny

Shalaby

Ghorab

2020

JAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Totally 80 disk-shaped specimens of Filtek™ Bulk-Fill, 3M ESPE, and Filtek™ Z250 XT, 3M ESPE, were prepared by using split-Teflon mold (4mm×10mm). Specimen characterization XRD, Surface roughness, degree of conversion, Surface microhardness, and depth of cure of the specimens were evaluated after the specimens were stored in distilled water in darkness at 37°C for 24 h. Statistical analysis was done using t-test with a significance level at p<0.05. Filtek TM Z350 XT showed the highest mean value of Vickers microhardness either on top surface 94.94% or bottom surface 69.92% and recorded 76.51% while Filtek TM Bulk-Fill was 66.85% for depth of cure. Filtek bulk-fill recorded a lower mean value of 0.73 for Surface roughness than Filtek TM Z350 XT and the highest degree of conversion of 84.34%. Statistical analysis showed that there was a significant difference between the mean values for all tested results. Increasing the filler content proved to have ability to enhance some properties, specially the surface roughness. Incorporation of some structurally rigid monomers like Bis-DMA, UDMA, TEGDMA within the resin matrix have a great influence on the measured properties , including degree of conversion reached to 84.34%, depth of cure to a level of 76.51% and Vickers microhardness to 94.94%.

show abstract

“…The advantage of the so-called "bulk fill" composite material is that it can be placed in a 4-mm thickness bulk and cured in one step instead of the current incremental fill technique, without any effect on polymerization shrinkage, cavity adaptation, and decreased moisture contamination. 11,12 Bulk filling composites have higher filler volume percentage, and occasionally a modified initiator system to ensure better curing in depth, as compared with traditional composites, thus ensuring superior physical and mechanical properties to combat higher masticatory forces. 13 It is also reported that the bulk fill resin composites reduce cuspal deflection and promote light transmittance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…13 It is also reported that the bulk fill resin composites reduce cuspal deflection and promote light transmittance. 12,14 When defining composites, certain properties should be evaluated. These include, but are not limited to, hardness, flexural strength, and compressive strength.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An in-vitro Evaluation of Mechanical Properties and Surface Roughness of Bulk Fill vs Incremental Fill Resin Composites

Azmi¹,

Hashem²,

Assery³

et al. 2017

ijpcdr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To investigate and compare the mechanical properties of two bulk fill resin composite materials (Tetric EvoCeram and Filtek Bulk Fill) and two incremental fill resin composites (Grandio and Filtek Z350 XT). The surface roughness and surface topographic analyses of these materials were also evaluated and compared. Materials and methods:A total of 120 specimens (n = 20) were prepared from two bulk fill nanocomposite restorative materials and two incremental fill nanocomposite restorative materials to evaluate the mechanical properties [hardness (H), elastic modulus (E), compressive strength (S), flexural strength (O f ), and surface roughness]. The hardness and elastic modulus were measured using nanoindenter equipped with a Berkovich diamond indenter. Compressive strength and flexural strength of each material were determined using a universal testing machine. The surface roughness of the materials was determined using atomic force microscopy. One-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey's post hoc test was used to determine the statistical differences among groups at a significance of p < 0.05. Results: The nanoindentation test showed that the Filtek Bulk

show abstract

Bulk‐Fill Flowable Composite Resins

Cited by 32 publications

References 3 publications

Comparison of Shear Bond Strength and Microleakage of Various Bulk-fill Bioactive Dentin substitutes: An in vitro Study

Comparison of Shear Bond Strength and Microleakage of Various Bulk-fill Bioactive Dentin substitutes: An in vitro Study

Comparative Study on The Structure, Physical Properties and Hardness Indentation of a Bulk Fill & An Incremental Composite Resin Restorative Materials

An in-vitro Evaluation of Mechanical Properties and Surface Roughness of Bulk Fill vs Incremental Fill Resin Composites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About