Comparison of Physical Properties Between Universal and Flowable Restorative Composites

Objectives: To compare the physical properties of universal flowable and conventional universal restorative composites since the low viscosity universal flowable restoratives have similar indications as high viscosity conventional universal restoratives including load bearing 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 universal restorative composites: Filtek Supreme Ultra (3M), Tetric EvoCearm (Ivoclar Vivadent), TPH Spectra ST (Dentsply Sirona), and Harmonize (Kerr) were tested for flexural strength (ISO 4049 Flexural Strength, N=6), fracture Toughness (N=6), ratiopacity (ISO 4049, N=2), and localized wear (Leinfelder Wear Test, N=6). The results were compared between universal flowable and conventional universal restorative composites by using the Mann-Whitney Test.
Results: Universal flowable composites are significantly different in radiopacity (p=0.030) but not significantly different in flexural strength (p=0.387), fracture toughness (p=0.773), and localized wear (p=0.665) from conventional universal restorative composites.
Conclusions: Universal flowable restorative composites are inferior to conventional universal restorative composites in radiopacity.