IADR Abstract Archives
New Universal Flowable Composites: Mechanical and Structural Analysis
Objectives: A new generation of highly filled flowable composites, also called “universal flowable composites”, was recently developed to restore all cavity classes, with no capping layer of another composite needed. The aim of this study was to investigate mechanical and structural properties of these new reinforced flowable composites, compared to conventional materials.
Methods: Two universal flowable composites, a new reinforced flowable composite (G-ænial Universal Injectable, GC Corporation) and a new bulk-fill reinforced flowable composite (Estellite Bulk-Fill Flow, Tokuyama Dental) were compared to three conventional materials: a nano-hybrid composite (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar-Vivadent), a bulk-fill composite (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk-Fill, Ivoclar Vivadent) and a flowable composite (Tetric EvoFlow, Ivoclar Vivadent). For each composite, 22 samples were inserted in a 2x2x25mm mold (5 x n=22), then light-cured for 60 s in each side, with a broadband LED curing light (Valo Cordless, Ultradent). Twenty samples (5 x n=20) of them were tested for flexural strength (FS), Young’s modulus (E) and Vickers microhardness (HV). Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVAs, followed by Tukey’s post-hoc tests (p=0,05). Two of them (5 x n=2) were etched with 5% hydrofluoric acid for 1 min, then studied by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) at x2000 magnification.
Results: G-ænial Universal Injectable showed the highest FS, significantly higher than FS of Estellite Bulk-fill Flow, and both were significantly higher than FS of the three conventional materials. Both had also significantly better E and HV compared to Tetric EvoFlow, but significantly lower E and HV than Tetric EvoCeram and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk-fill. SEM observations showed very different ultrastructures (see the figure).
Conclusions: Universal flowable composites, each with different ultrastructures, presented highly improved mechanical properties, compared to flowable composite. They presented higher FS, but slightly lower E and HV, compared to bulk-fill and nano-hybrid composites. Thus, they could be interesting easy-to-handle restorative materials.
Methods: Two universal flowable composites, a new reinforced flowable composite (G-ænial Universal Injectable, GC Corporation) and a new bulk-fill reinforced flowable composite (Estellite Bulk-Fill Flow, Tokuyama Dental) were compared to three conventional materials: a nano-hybrid composite (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar-Vivadent), a bulk-fill composite (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk-Fill, Ivoclar Vivadent) and a flowable composite (Tetric EvoFlow, Ivoclar Vivadent). For each composite, 22 samples were inserted in a 2x2x25mm mold (5 x n=22), then light-cured for 60 s in each side, with a broadband LED curing light (Valo Cordless, Ultradent). Twenty samples (5 x n=20) of them were tested for flexural strength (FS), Young’s modulus (E) and Vickers microhardness (HV). Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVAs, followed by Tukey’s post-hoc tests (p=0,05). Two of them (5 x n=2) were etched with 5% hydrofluoric acid for 1 min, then studied by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) at x2000 magnification.
Results: G-ænial Universal Injectable showed the highest FS, significantly higher than FS of Estellite Bulk-fill Flow, and both were significantly higher than FS of the three conventional materials. Both had also significantly better E and HV compared to Tetric EvoFlow, but significantly lower E and HV than Tetric EvoCeram and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk-fill. SEM observations showed very different ultrastructures (see the figure).
Conclusions: Universal flowable composites, each with different ultrastructures, presented highly improved mechanical properties, compared to flowable composite. They presented higher FS, but slightly lower E and HV, compared to bulk-fill and nano-hybrid composites. Thus, they could be interesting easy-to-handle restorative materials.
3181532_File000000.jpg