Next Article in Journal
The Effect of JAK Inhibitor on the Survival, Anagen Re-Entry, and Hair Follicle Immune Privilege Restoration in Human Dermal Papilla Cells
Next Article in Special Issue
Red and Yellow Injectable Platelet-Rich Fibrin Demonstrated Differential Effects on Periodontal Ligament Stem Cell Proliferation, Migration, and Osteogenic Differentiation
Previous Article in Journal
ADAM-Mediated Signalling Pathways in Gastrointestinal Cancer Formation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Modifications of Hydroxyapatite by Gallium and Silver Ions—Physicochemical Characterization, Cytotoxicity and Antibacterial Evaluation
Open AccessArticle

Bulk Fill Composites Have Similar Performance to Conventional Dental Composites

1
Department of Biomaterials, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, University of Oslo, PO Box 1109 Blindern, NO-0376 Oslo, Norway
2
Department of Endodontics and Restorative Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Gunduliceva 5, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(14), 5136; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21145136
Received: 13 June 2020 / Revised: 15 July 2020 / Accepted: 18 July 2020 / Published: 20 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Dental Materials and Biomaterials)
The aim of the study was to perform comprehensive characterization of two commonly used bulk fill composite materials (SDR Flow (SDR) and Filtek™ Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative (FBF) and one conventional composite material (Tetric EvoCeram; TEC). Eleven parameters were examined: flexural strength (FS), flexural modulus (FM), degree of conversion, depth of cure, polymerisation shrinkage (PS), filler particle morphology, filler mass fraction, Vickers hardness, surface roughness following simulated toothbrush abrasion, monomer elution, and cytotoxic reaction of human gingival fibroblasts, osteoblasts, and cancer cells. The degree of conversion and depth of cure were the highest for SDR, followed by FBF and TEC, but there was no difference in PS between them. FS was higher for bulk fill materials, while their FM and hardness were lower than those of TEC. Surface roughness decreased in the order TEC→SDR→FBF. Bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (BisGMA) and urethane dimethacrylate were found in TEC and FBF eluates, while SDR released BisGMA and triethylene glycol dimethacrylate. Conditioned media accumulated for 24 h from FBF and TEC were cytotoxic to primary human osteoblasts. Compared to the conventional composite, the tested bulk fill materials performed equally or better in most of the tests, except for their hardness, elastic modulus, and biocompatibility with osteoblasts. View Full-Text
Keywords: bulk fill; composite resin; restorative materials bulk fill; composite resin; restorative materials
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Haugen, H.J.; Marovic, D.; Par, M.; Khai Le Thieu, M.; Reseland, J.E.; Johnsen, G.F. Bulk Fill Composites Have Similar Performance to Conventional Dental Composites. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 5136.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop