Tanta Dental Journal

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year
: 2017  |  Volume : 14  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 56--61

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


Dalia A Abuelenain1, Ensanya A Abou Neel2, Ayman Al-Dharrab1 
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

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.


How to cite this article:
Abuelenain DA, Abou Neel EA, Al-Dharrab A. Surface characterization and mechanical behavior of bulk fill versus incremental dental composites.Tanta Dent J 2017;14:56-61


How to cite this URL:
Abuelenain DA, Abou Neel EA, Al-Dharrab A. Surface characterization and mechanical behavior of bulk fill versus incremental dental composites. Tanta Dent J [serial online] 2017 [cited 2017 Dec 14 ];14:56-61
Available from: http://www.tmj.eg.net/article.asp?issn=1687-8574;year=2017;volume=14;issue=2;spage=56;epage=61;aulast=Abuelenain;type=0