Comparison of Physical Properties Between Universal and Conventional Flowable Composites

Objectives: To compare the physical properties of universal and conventional flowable restorative composites since universal flowable composites have broader indications than conventional flowable, including occlusal surfaces.
Methods: Four Universal flowable restorative composites: Beautifil Flow Plus (Shofu), Clearfil Majesty ES Flow (Kuraray), G-aenial Universal Flo (GC), and GrandioSO Heavy Flow (VOCO) and four conventional flowable restorative composites: Filtek Supreme Ultra Flow (3M), Tetric EvoFlow (Ivoclar Vivadent), Esthet-X Flow (Dentsply Sirona), and Admira Fusion Flow (VOCO) were tested for flexural strength (ISO 4049 Flexural Strength, N=6), flexural modulus (ISO 4049 Flexural Strength, N=6), volumetric shrinkage (Helium pycnometer, N=6), and localized wear (Leinfelder Wear Test ,N=6). The results were compared between the universal and conventional flowable restorative composites by using the Mann-Whitney Test.
Results: Universal flowable restorative composites are significantly different in flexural modulus (p < 0.0001), flexural strength (p = 0.0009), shrinkage (p = 0.0373), and localized wear (p < 0.0001) from conventional flowable restorative composites.
Conclusions: Universal flowable restorative composites are better than conventional flowable restorative composites in localized wear, flexural strength and flexural modulus.