Objective: To compare the shrinkage, flexural strength, diametral tensile strength, and wear properties of a 3M experimental flowable with 3M Filtek™ Supreme Plus flowable and some other commercially available flowable materials.
Methods: Materials used were an experimental flowable material from 3M ESPE, Filtek Supreme Plus Flowable (3M ESPE), Revolution™ Formula 2 (Kerr), Tetric® EvoFlow (Ivoclar Vivadent), and EsthetX® Flow (Dentsply). Shrinkage was measured according to Watts method (Dental Materials, Oct. 1991, pp281-287). Flexural Strength was evaluated on 20 mm x 2 mm x 2 mm bars in three-point bending mode. Diametral Tensile Strength was measured using cylindrical samples. Wear data were recorded as decreases in sample depth after 200,000 rotational cycles using a three-body-wear apparatus.
Results: The properties measured are summarized in the following table, with p values vs. the experimental flowable included.
Materials | Watts Shrinkage (%) | Flex Strength (MPa) | DTS (MPa) | Wear (µm) | ||||
Experimental flowable | 3.21(0.08) |
| 127.6(4.18) |
| 69.9(3.63) |
| 10.11(0.86) |
|
Filtek Supreme Plus Flowable | 3.92(0.03) | p = 0.00 | 119.3(10.50) | P = 0.03 | 71.9(5.71) | p = 0.40 | 9.75(0.60) | p = 0.34 |
Tetric EvoFlow | 3.61(0.03) | p = 0.01 | 110.6(5.20) | p = 0.00 | 45.2(5.48) | p = 0.00 | 18.71(1.18) | p = 0.00 |
EsthetX Flow | 4.19(0.05) | p = 0.00 | 130.9(4.97) | p = 0.25 | 59.3(6.16) | p = 0.01 | 16.23(1.20) | p = 0.00 |
Revolution Formula 2 | 4.95(0.02) | p = 0.00 | 106.4(12.20) | p = 0.01 | 52.2(5.18) | p = 0.00 | 17.85(1.62) | p = 0.00 |
Conclusion: The new 3M experimental flowable material showed statistically lower shrinkage values compared with Filtek Supreme Plus Flowable while maintaining or improving major mechanical properties.