IADR Abstract Archives
Mechanical Properties of Bulk-Fill Flow Resins With Different Technologies
Objectives: A new bulk-fill flow composite resin with 25% glass nanofibers in its composition was recently launched on the market, indicated for direct restoration of extensively destroyed teeth.
Given the emergence of this new material, the objective of this work was to evaluate the flexural strength (σ), modulus of elasticity (E) and contraction stress, both tests carried out on the universal testing machine (Instron), of the materials: bulk-fill flow reinforced by nanofibers (BFFN, EverX, GC), bulk-fill flow with Giomer technology (BFG, Beautiful-Bulk Flowable, Shofu), conventional resin flow (FC, G-aenial Universal Injectable, GC) and bulk-fill flow ( BFC, SDR Surefill, Dentsply), the last two being the control group.
Methods: The specimens (n=10) for (σ) and (E) were made using a split matrix with dimensions of 8x2x2 and polymerized using the Valo device (ultradent) for the time determined by the manufacturer. The contraction stress test (n=6) was carried out with two 6x2mm metal bases with 1mm thickness between them, forming a 12mm3 specimen. Finally, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed to evaluate the fracture characteristics of all materials.
Results: The results of σ and E (MPa) for the groups were, respectively: FC (93.43+12.80ab; 4.84+0.32a); BFC (86.89+7.60ab; 4.72+0.35a); BFFN (100.02+18.69b; 5.83+0.40b); BFG (84.89+6.43a; 5.52+0.50b). The average maximum contraction stress (MPa) after 300s were: FC (0.239+0.06a); BFC (0.241+0.03a); BFFN (0.283+0.08ab).
Conclusions:
It can be concluded that the bulk-fill flow groups reinforced by nanofibers and with Giomer technology presented similar results to the control group.
Given the emergence of this new material, the objective of this work was to evaluate the flexural strength (σ), modulus of elasticity (E) and contraction stress, both tests carried out on the universal testing machine (Instron), of the materials: bulk-fill flow reinforced by nanofibers (BFFN, EverX, GC), bulk-fill flow with Giomer technology (BFG, Beautiful-Bulk Flowable, Shofu), conventional resin flow (FC, G-aenial Universal Injectable, GC) and bulk-fill flow ( BFC, SDR Surefill, Dentsply), the last two being the control group.
Methods: The specimens (n=10) for (σ) and (E) were made using a split matrix with dimensions of 8x2x2 and polymerized using the Valo device (ultradent) for the time determined by the manufacturer. The contraction stress test (n=6) was carried out with two 6x2mm metal bases with 1mm thickness between them, forming a 12mm3 specimen. Finally, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed to evaluate the fracture characteristics of all materials.
Results: The results of σ and E (MPa) for the groups were, respectively: FC (93.43+12.80ab; 4.84+0.32a); BFC (86.89+7.60ab; 4.72+0.35a); BFFN (100.02+18.69b; 5.83+0.40b); BFG (84.89+6.43a; 5.52+0.50b). The average maximum contraction stress (MPa) after 300s were: FC (0.239+0.06a); BFC (0.241+0.03a); BFFN (0.283+0.08ab).
Conclusions:
It can be concluded that the bulk-fill flow groups reinforced by nanofibers and with Giomer technology presented similar results to the control group.