Assessment of compressive and flexural properties of three contemporary bulk fill resin composites.

Norma Borja-Farfán, Danilo Loyola-Livias, Leslie Casas-Apayco, Monica Hermoza-Novoa
{"title":"Assessment of compressive and flexural properties of three contemporary bulk fill resin composites.","authors":"Norma Borja-Farfán, Danilo Loyola-Livias, Leslie Casas-Apayco, Monica Hermoza-Novoa","doi":"10.54589/aol.38/3/237","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Contemporary restorative materials must demonstrate how much stress they can withstand before permanently deforming under the constant forces generated during chewing.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the compressive and flexural strength of three bulk fill resin composites.</p><p><strong>Materials and method: </strong>This study analyzed three bulk fill resin composites: Opus™ bulk fill (OBF), Tetric® N-Ceram bulk fill (TNC), and Filtek™ bulk fill (FBF), and one conventional resin composite: Filtek™ Z350XT (FZXT) as a control group. Each composite was used to prepare 14 cylindrical specimens (n=56) for compressive strength tests, and 19 rectangular specimens (n=76) for flexural strength tests. Mechanical tests were performed using an Instron® universal testing machine - 100 kN load at a speed of 1 mm/1min.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Descriptive (Mean ± SD) and inferential statistics (Kruskal-Wallis test/ post-hoc test), p<0.05 were used. The compressive test results (Means ± SD) were: OBF (141.68MPa ± 22.20), TNC (139.03MPa ± 23.56), FBF (235.59MPa ± 26.08), and FZXT (99.28MPa ± 11.36). The flexural test results (Means ± SD) were: OBF (116.29 ± 7.20), TNCBF (109.67MPa ± 7.58), FBF (200.53MPa ± 10.32), and FZXT (90.08MPa ± 8.63). Statistically significant differences were found between the resin composites (p<0.001) in both mechanical tests.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The bulk fill resin composites demonstrated higher compressive and flexural strength than the conventional resin composite. However, the use of these restorative materials may depend on specific clinical requirements and material handling preferences.</p>","PeriodicalId":93853,"journal":{"name":"Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL","volume":"38 3","pages":"237-241"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12937118/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54589/aol.38/3/237","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Contemporary restorative materials must demonstrate how much stress they can withstand before permanently deforming under the constant forces generated during chewing.

Aim: To compare the compressive and flexural strength of three bulk fill resin composites.

Materials and method: This study analyzed three bulk fill resin composites: Opus™ bulk fill (OBF), Tetric® N-Ceram bulk fill (TNC), and Filtek™ bulk fill (FBF), and one conventional resin composite: Filtek™ Z350XT (FZXT) as a control group. Each composite was used to prepare 14 cylindrical specimens (n=56) for compressive strength tests, and 19 rectangular specimens (n=76) for flexural strength tests. Mechanical tests were performed using an Instron® universal testing machine - 100 kN load at a speed of 1 mm/1min.

Results: Descriptive (Mean ± SD) and inferential statistics (Kruskal-Wallis test/ post-hoc test), p<0.05 were used. The compressive test results (Means ± SD) were: OBF (141.68MPa ± 22.20), TNC (139.03MPa ± 23.56), FBF (235.59MPa ± 26.08), and FZXT (99.28MPa ± 11.36). The flexural test results (Means ± SD) were: OBF (116.29 ± 7.20), TNCBF (109.67MPa ± 7.58), FBF (200.53MPa ± 10.32), and FZXT (90.08MPa ± 8.63). Statistically significant differences were found between the resin composites (p<0.001) in both mechanical tests.

Conclusions: The bulk fill resin composites demonstrated higher compressive and flexural strength than the conventional resin composite. However, the use of these restorative materials may depend on specific clinical requirements and material handling preferences.

当代三种散装填充树脂复合材料的压缩和弯曲性能评估。
当代修复材料必须证明在咀嚼过程中产生的恒定力下,它们能承受多大的压力才会永久变形。目的:比较三种大块填充树脂复合材料的抗压和抗折强度。材料和方法:本研究分析了三种散装填充树脂复合材料:Opus™散装填充(OBF), Tetric®N-Ceram散装填充(TNC)和Filtek™散装填充(FBF),以及一种传统树脂复合材料:Filtek™Z350XT (FZXT)作为对照组。每种复合材料分别制备14个圆柱形试件(n=56)进行抗压强度试验,19个矩形试件(n=76)进行抗弯强度试验。机械测试采用Instron®万能试验机,负载为100 kN,速度为1 mm/1min。结果:描述性统计(Mean±SD)和推断性统计(Kruskal-Wallis检验/事后检验),结论:体积填充树脂复合材料比常规树脂复合材料具有更高的抗压和抗弯强度。然而,这些修复材料的使用可能取决于特定的临床要求和材料处理偏好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书