IADR Abstract Archives
Bulk Fill in sandwich technique: compressive properties
Objectives: Now days Bulk Fill resins are becoming more and more popular, because of their simple usage technique. Nevertheless there is no enough research investigating their mechanical properties in comparison to the conventional ones.
Methods: For this study, two sixth year dentistry students were recruited. Each student prepared 40 cylinders (3X6mm) from different manufacturers- 3M, IVOCALR and DENTSPLY (a total of 120 samples for each), 20 samples were prepared from Bulk Fill in sandwich technique and 20 remaining from conventional composite resin in traditional preparation layering method. Out of each 20 samples, 10 were examined after 24 hours of incubating in moisture conditions and 10 samples after 6 months under the same conditions. Compression test (INSTRON) was applied and
the maximal compressive force at failure and stiffness, calculated as the slope of the linear portion of the load-deflection diagram, were determined. Statistical analysis was applied.
Results: Conventional composite resins showed approximately 20% higher strength and stiffness compared to Bulk Fill type of the same manufacturer (p<0.001). Significant differences between the manufactures were noticed where consistently 3M samples displayed higher compressive properties.
Time of incubating had no effect on the mechanical properties; however different operator does have an effect, but it was inconsistent.
Conclusions: Conventional composite resins have superior compressive properties compared to Bulk Fill composites. The Bulk Fill composite is sensitive to operator hand.
Methods: For this study, two sixth year dentistry students were recruited. Each student prepared 40 cylinders (3X6mm) from different manufacturers- 3M, IVOCALR and DENTSPLY (a total of 120 samples for each), 20 samples were prepared from Bulk Fill in sandwich technique and 20 remaining from conventional composite resin in traditional preparation layering method. Out of each 20 samples, 10 were examined after 24 hours of incubating in moisture conditions and 10 samples after 6 months under the same conditions. Compression test (INSTRON) was applied and
the maximal compressive force at failure and stiffness, calculated as the slope of the linear portion of the load-deflection diagram, were determined. Statistical analysis was applied.
Results: Conventional composite resins showed approximately 20% higher strength and stiffness compared to Bulk Fill type of the same manufacturer (p<0.001). Significant differences between the manufactures were noticed where consistently 3M samples displayed higher compressive properties.
Time of incubating had no effect on the mechanical properties; however different operator does have an effect, but it was inconsistent.
Conclusions: Conventional composite resins have superior compressive properties compared to Bulk Fill composites. The Bulk Fill composite is sensitive to operator hand.