IADR Abstract Archives

Physical and Mechanical Characterization of Different Flowable Composites

Objectives: Many flowable resin-based composites (FRBCs) are nowadays available with different compositions and a wide range of indications. This study aimed to evaluate the mechanical properties of different FRBCs, their filler particle content and distribution.
Methods: Thirteen FRBCs were tested: Beautifil Flow Plus [00] (BFP), Clearfil Majesty High-Flow (CMH), Clearfil Majesty Low-Flow (CML), Clearfil Majesty Super-Low-Flow (CMSL), EverX Flow Bulk (EXB), EverX Flow Dentin (EXD), Gaenial Flo X (GFX), Gaenial Universal Flo (GUF), Gaenial Universal Injectable (GUI), SDR Flow + (SDR) and SDR Flow +U (SDRU), CeramX Spectra ST flow (SPST), and Tetric EvoFlow (TEF). Gaenial Achord (GA), a conventional RBC, was used as control group. Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) was used for filler-particle characterization. Filler content was determined by filler mass fraction (thermogravimetric analysis) (n=1). Particle distribution was assessed by measuring hydrodynamic diameter and particle distribution index (n=3). Composite bars were fabricated for elastic modulus, flexural strength, and Knoop hardness tests (n=10). Data obtained for the flexural strength were statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tuckey’s post-hoc tests while results for modulus of elasticity and hardness were submitted to Kruskal–Wallis test.
Results: Particle distribution was generally homogeneous (polydispersity index (PDI) 6.80%–20.47%), except for BFP (24.07%), SDR+ (25.27%), TEF (27.27%), and GUF (86.20%). Average particle size varied from 244.90±5.00 (CML) to 1436.37±103.46nm (BFP). Filler content ranged from 57.42% (TEF) to 70.71% (GA). For elastic modulus, GA, BFP, EXD, EXB, GUF, SDR, and SDR+U presented the highest values while TEF showed the lowest (p<0.05). For flexural strength, CMH and GFX scored higher (p<0.05). In hardness tests, GA, EXB and EXD showed the highest results (p<0.05).
Conclusions: Despite the variable results presented by different FRBCs, they do not necessarily underperform when compared to conventional RBCs.

Division:
Meeting: 2025 IADR/PER General Session & Exhibition (Barcelona, Spain)
Location: Barcelona, Spain
Year: 2025
Final Presentation ID: 0928
Abstract Category|Abstract Category(s): Dental Materials 2: Polymer-based Materials

Authors

Do Nascimento, Angela Josefa ( KU Leuven , Leuven , Belgium ; Universidade de Pernambuco , Recife , Pernambuco , Brazil )

Horie, Taku ( KU Leuven , Leuven , Belgium )

Etiennot, Line ( KU Leuven , Leuven , Belgium )

Kireilyte, Mante ( KU Leuven , Leuven , Belgium ; Lithuanian University of Health Sciences , Kaunas , Lithuania )

Braz, Rodivan ( Universidade de Pernambuco , Recife , Pernambuco , Brazil )

Zhang, Fei ( KU Leuven , Leuven , Belgium ; KU Leuven , Leuven , Belgium )

Van Meerbeek, Bart ( KU Leuven , Leuven , Belgium )

Vivan Cardoso, Marcio ( KU Leuven , Leuven , Belgium )

Support Funding Agency/Grant Number: CAPES - Brazil
Financial Interest Disclosure: NONE

SESSION INFORMATION

Poster Session
Dental Materials 2: Polymer-based Materials III - Mechanical Properties 1
Thursday, 06/26/2025 , 03:45PM - 05:00PM

TABLES

Table 1 – Results of filler-particle characterization and mechanical properties (elastic modulus, flexural strength and hardness) with the respective descriptive statistics.

Group	Filler properties			Elastic modulus (GPa)	Flexural strength (MPa)	Hardness (Kg/mm²⁾
Group	HD (nm)	PDI (%)	TGA - 500°C (%)	Elastic modulus (GPa)	Flexural strength (MPa)	Hardness (Kg/mm²⁾
GA	360.53 ± 0.74	16.90 ± 0.98	70.71	12.23 ± 0.31^a	102.82 ± 7.72^a	75.09 ± 3.79^a,b
BFP	1436.37 ± 103.46	24.07 ± 2.03	67.16	11.66 ± 0.53^a,b	109.98 ± 8.32^a	68.99 ± 1.41^b,c,d
CMH	259.20 ± 4.50	13.80 ± 0.46	64.61	9.53 ± 0.29^c	158.23 ± 11.55^b,c	54.43 ± 1.91^e,f
CML	244.90 ± 5.00	6.80 ± 1.71	69.19	10.56 ± 0.27^d,e,f	147.90 ± 14.95^c	59.05 ± 4.72^e,f,g
CMSL	251.33 ± 5.03	7.43 ± 4.55	68.35	10.41 ± 0.44^e,f	143.55 ± 21.05^c,d	62.77 ± 3.83^e,g,h
EXB	450.47 ± 3.09	15.07 ± 1.72	68.92	11.99 ± 0.95^a,b,d,e,f	111.35 ± 14.71^a	81.03 ± 6.13^a
EXD	459.30 ± 6.43	18.77 ± 1.25	69.72	12.51 ± 0.87^a	119.19 ± 7.12^a,e	72.23 ± 5.87^a,b,c,g,h
GFX	440.30 ± 6.18	19.13 ± 2.00	67.13	11.11 ± 0.36^b,e	178.04 ± 10.06^b	65.41 ± 2.38^c,d,h
GUF	365.70 ± 3.47	86.20 ± 15.12	64.32	11.81 ± 0.88^a,b,d,e	144.41 ±19.67^c	70.44 ± 2.68^b,c,d
GUI	286.23 ± 6.70	11.27 ± 3.18	63.69	10.33 ± 0.16^f	145.55 ± 13.67^c	64.12 ± 4.01^d,e,g,h
SDR+	537.70 ± 3.24	25.27 ± 0.90	70.19	12.13 ± 0.23^a	145.79 ± 24.36^c	58.60 ± 3.35^e,f
SDR+U	524.97 ± 3.86	20.47 ± 1.53	69.61	12.22 ± 0.28^a	140.51 ± 10.05^c,d,e	52.11 ± 4.39^f,i
SPST	625.70 ± 26.68	12.37 ± 1.95	62.28	9.12 ± 0.39^c	121.75 ± 14.04^a,d,e	46.93 ± 4.18^i,j
TEF	895.03 ± 56.02	27.27 ±1.01	57.42	8.29 ± 0.26^g	116.27 ± 17.45^a	39.65 ± 1.73^j

Abbreviations: HD – Hydrodinamic diameter; PDI – polydispersity index; TGA – Thermogravimetric analysis. Groups with different superscript letters in each column are significant different (p ≤ 0.05)