• Users Online: 97
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 14  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 56-61

Surface characterization and mechanical behavior of bulk fill versus incremental dental composites


1 Department of Restorative Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
2 Department of Restorative Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; Department of Dental Biomaterials, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering, London, UK

Correspondence Address:
Dalia A Abuelenain
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah
Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/tdj.tdj_56_16

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate surface and mechanical properties of bulk fill composite compared to conventional incremental composites. Materials and methods: The bulk fill composites were Filtek Bulk Fill, Sonic Fill, SDR Smart Dentin Replacement and Tetric-N-Ceram Bulk Fill while the incremental ones were Filtek Z350 × T and Herculite XRV Ultra. Surface roughness and wettability was measured using profilometer (Bruker) and drop shape analyzer (Kruss), respectively. Surface hardness of the top and bottom surface was measured using Micromet 6040 (Buehler). For mechanical test, the universal testing machine was used under the three-point bending test. Results: There was no statistical significant difference in wettability and surface roughness between bulk fill and incremental composites, except the SDR that showed statistically significance higher roughness than incremental composites. All composites showed significantly lower hardness than Filtek Z350; the lowest hardness was recorded for SDR. There was no significant difference between bulk fill and incremental composites in flexure strength and modulus. SDR showed the lowest flexure strength and modulus but the highest strain% (P < 0.05) compared to all tested materials. Sonic fill system showed significantly higher flexure strength and modulus when compared to other bulk fill materials (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The difference between bulk fill and incremental composite is mainly material dependent.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
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
    Viewed73    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded36    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal