Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 1280
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 23  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 36-41

Bonding performance and mechanical properties of flowable bulk-fill and traditional composites in high c-factor cavity models

1 Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, RN, Brazil
2 Technology and Research Center, University of Mogi das Cruzes; Department of Dentistry, Metropolitan University of Santos, SP, Brazil
3 Department of Operative Dentistry, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Leticia Virginia Freitas Chaves
Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Av. Sen. Salgado Filho, 1787, Natal, RN
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_58_19

Rights and Permissions

Objectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate bond strength (BS), shrinkage stress (SS), flexural strength (FS), and elastic modulus (E) of three flowable bulk fill in comparison with conventional composites. Materials and Methods: Three bulk fill (Filtek Bulk Fill Flow, Surefil SDR, X-tra Base) and three conventional composites (Filtek Z250 XT, Grandioso, Dentsply TPH3) were used. For BS, conical cavities (n = 10) were prepared in bovine dentine and restored with materials and were analyzed through push-out test in a universal testing machine (UTM). For FS/EM, 60 (n = 10) bar specimens (7 mm × 2 mm × 1 mm) were prepared and evaluated with a UTM. SS was measured in UTM coupled to an extensometer (n = 5). The data were statistically evaluated using one-way ANOVA/Tukey tests (P < 0.05). Results: Conventional composites showed higher E when compared to bulk-fill composites. Regarding FS, they showed similar results, except for (XBF) Xtra Bulk Fill that was inferior. SS and BS of bulk-fill composites were significantly lower and higher than conventional composites, respectively, except for XBF, which showed similar BS to conventional ones. Conclusions: Flowable bulk-fill composites, except XBF, showed higher BS, lower SS, similar FS, and lower E when compared to conventional ones.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded108    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal