Comparison of Properties Between Bulk Fill and Conventional Flowable Composites

Objectives: To compare the physical properties of bulk fill and conventional flowable restorative composites produced by the same manufacturers.
Methods: Five universal shade bulk fill flowable restorative composites: Filtek Bulk Fill (3M), SureFil SDR Flow (Dentsply Caulk), Venus Bulk Fill (Heraeus Kulzer), Beautifil-Bulk Flowable (Shofu), X-tra Base (VOCO) and Five A2 shade conventional non-bulk fill flowable restorative composites: Filtek Supreme Ultra Flowable (3M), TPH3 Flow (Dentsply Caulk), Venus Diamond Flow (Heraeus Kulzer), Beautifil Flow Plus F03 (Shofu), GrandioSO Heavy Flow (VOCO) were tested for polymerization stress (ADA Tensometer, N=3), depth of cure (ISO 4049 Depth of Cure, N=3), flexural modulus (initial slope of ISO 4049 Flexural Strength, N=6), volumetric shrinkage (Helium pycnometer, N=6) and radiopacity (ISO 4049 Radiopacity, N=3). The results were compared between the bulk fill flowable and conventional flowable restorative composites from the same manufacturer by paired t- test.
Results: Bulk fill flowable restorative composites are significantly different in depth of cure (p = 0.001), polymerization stress (p = 0.038) and radiopacity (p = 0.033) from conventional flowable restorative composites. There are not significant differences between bulk fill and conventional flowable restorative composites in flexural modulus (p = 0.140) and volumetric shrinkage (p = 0.061).
Conclusions: Due to the bulk fill applications, bulk fill flowable restorative composites are better than conventional flowable restoratives in depth of cure, polymerization stress and radiopacity.