Flexural Strength of Conventional or Bulk-fill Resin Composite Repaired with High- or Low-viscosity Restorative Materials.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the flexural strength of two types of high-viscosity resin composites (conventional or bulk-fill) that were repaired with either high-viscosity composites (conventional or bulk-fill) or low-viscosity composites (conventional or bulk-fill) of the same manufacturer (3M Oral Care, St Paul, MN, USA).

Methods and materials: Specimens (25 mm × 2 mm × 2 mm) of both conventional nanofilled resin (Filtek Z350XT), and bulk-fill nanofilled resin (Filtek One Bulk Fill) were prepared. After fracture of the specimens in the 3-point bending test (initial), half of the specimens were repaired immediately afterwards (24 hours), and the other half were repaired after 6 months of storage in distilled water. Repairs were performed with (n=15) high-viscosity resin composites (Filtek Z350XT, Filtek One Bulk Fill), or their low-viscosity versions (Filtek Supreme XT Flow, Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative). The repair was performed by roughening the surface and applying phosphoric acid, silane, and adhesive. The bending test (results reported in MPa) was performed in a universal testing machine, and the fracture pattern was determined. Data were evaluated by generalized linear models, chi-square test and the Fisher exact test (α=0.05).

Results: There was no significant difference between the former pair of high-viscosity resins in terms of initial flexural strength (p=0.42). The repairs performed with low-viscosity resin composites after 24 hours or 6 months obtained higher MPa values compared with those using high-viscosity composites (p=0.0006). There was a significant decrease in MPa values when the repair was performed after 24 hours and an increase after 6 months, regardless of the material (p<0.0001). After 6 months, fractures involving the old (conventional) resin were more frequent in the repair performed with bulk-fill resin composites compared with the conventional composites (p=0.02).

Conclusions: Considering the tested products, the material to be repaired did not influence the flexural strength of the repair composite; however, the use of the low-viscosity resin composites resulted in greater flexural strength of the repaired material. The repair of the aged composite resulted in an increase in its flexural strength, regardless of the material repaired or used to perform the repair.