Next Article in Journal
Unveiling the Hidden Properties of Tomato Peels: Cutin Ester Derivatives as Bio-Based Plasticizers for Polylactic Acid
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Antibacterial Agents on Dentin Bond Strength of Bioactive Restorative Materials
Previous Article in Journal
Mechanical Analysis of 3D Printed Polyamide Composites under Different Filler Loadings
Previous Article in Special Issue
Teeth Restored with Bulk–Fill Composites and Conventional Resin Composites; Investigation of Stress Distribution and Fracture Lifespan on Enamel, Dentin, and Restorative Materials via Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Polymers
Volume 15
Issue 8
10.3390/polym15081847
polymers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

No-Cap Flowable Bulk-Fill Composite: Physico-Mechanical Assessment

by
Abdullah Alshehri
1,*,
Feras Alhalabi
1,
Ali Robaian
1,
Mohammed A. S. Abuelqomsan
1,
Abdulrahman Alshabib
2,3,
Eman Ismail
4,
Faisal Alzamil
5,
Nawaf Alotaibi
5 and
Hamad Algamaiah
2
1
Department of Conservative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj 11942, Saudi Arabia
2
Department of Restorative Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia
3
Engineer Abdullah Bugshan Research Chair for Dental and Oral Rehabilitation, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia
4
Department of Clinical Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh 11564, Saudi Arabia
5
College of Dentistry, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj 11942, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Polymers 2023, 15(8), 1847; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15081847
Submission received: 27 February 2023 / Revised: 3 April 2023 / Accepted: 8 April 2023 / Published: 11 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Polymers in Restorative Dentistry)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Background: A newer class of flowable bulk-fill resin-based composite (BF–RBC) materials requires no capping layer (Palfique Bulk flow, PaBF, Tokuyama Dental, Tokyo, Japan). The objective of this study was to assess the flexural strength, microhardness, surface roughness, and color stability of PaBF compared to two BF-RBCs with different consistencies. (2) Methods: PaBF, SDR Flow composite (SDRf: Charlotte, NC, USA) and One Bulk fill (OneBF: 3M, St. Paul, MN, USA) were evaluated for flexural strength with a universal testing machine, surface microhardness using a pyramidal Vickers indenter, and surface roughness using a high-resolution three-dimensional non-contact optical profiler, a and clinical spectrophotometer to measure the color stability of each BF–RBC material. (3) Results: OneBF presented statistically higher flexural strength and microhardness than PaBF or SDRf. Both PaBF and SDRf presented significantly less surface roughness compared with OneBF. Water storage significantly reduced the flexural strength and increased the surface roughness of all tested materials. Only SDRf showed significant color change after water storage. (4) Conclusions: The physico-mechanical properties of PaBF do not support its use without a capping layer in the stress bearing areas. PaBF showed less flexural strength compared with OneBF. Therefore, its use should be limited to a small restoration with minimal occlusal stresses.

1. Introduction

Resin-based composite (RBC) is the restorative material of choice for anterior and posterior direct restorations as indicated by the Academy of Operative Dentistry–European Section [1]. RBC materials are esthetic and durable restorative materials that can be used in several clinical conditions [2]. However, despite their improved physical and mechanical properties, RBC materials still have several shortcomings [3], such as inadequate depth of cure, the deterioration of mechanical properties, and color instability. In order to ensure the adequate degree of conversion (curing) of RBC materials, the incremental placement of RBC restorations is recommended [4,5]. However, this technique can be time-consuming, especially for large size restorations. In addition, it may result in contamination between RBC layers and the formation of voids within RBC restorations [4], which may impair the structural integrity of RBC restorations, resulting in the mechanical failure (fracture) of the RBC restorations. In addition, the inadequate depth of curing has prevented the use of conventional RBC thick layers (>2 mm) in various clinical cases [6], increasing the chair-side time required for the placement of large-size RBC restorations.
On the other hand, Bulk-fill RBCs (BF-RBCs) were introduced to the market with the goal of saving application time by using practical techniques [3,4]. BF-RBC materials allow for the placement of direct restorations in thick increments (up to 4 or 5 mm) and simplifies the restorative procedure [7]. Compared with conventional RBC materials, BF-RBCs have a higher degree of conversion, depth of cure, less polymerization shrinkage stress, and adequate marginal integrity. However, their mechanical and physical properties are material-dependent [4]. Despite the fact that some BF-RBCs may have adequate flexural strength [8], they exhibit lower hardness and elastic modulus compared to conventional RBCs [8]. BF-RBCs materials can be categorized according to their consistency as regular viscosity and low viscosity (flowable) materials [9]. Flowable BF-RBC materials usually require an additional capping later of high-viscosity RBC material, particularly in areas with high occlusal stress [8,9]. Such a capping layer is thought to reduce the wear rate and improve the mechanical performance of RBC restorations [9]. An additional reason for the replacement of RBC restorations is insufficient color stability [10], which impairs the esthetic outcome of RBC restorations. The staining of RBC materials can be caused by extrinsic or intrinsic factors [11]. External staining can be related to the adsorption or absorption of staining pigments from diet, plaque accumulation, and surface degradation [12]. Intrinsic factors, which cause the staining of the material in the absence of external influences, include the resin matrix ingredients, filler amount and size, and photo-initiator type [11,13]. Flowable RBC materials present more staining and less color stability compared with RBC of regular viscosity due to their low filler/resin ratio.
To simplify the placement of BF-RBCs even more, Palfique Bulk Flow (PaBF: Tokuyama Dental, Tokyo, Japan) has been marketed as a flowable BF-RBC material that can adapted to irregular cavities and requires no capping layer of regular-viscosity RBC. PaBF has numerous indications such as direct anterior and posterior restorations, cavity lining, the blocking out of cavity undercuts, and the repairing of the porcelain or RBC [14]. In addition, PaBF claims to allow a level of polymerization shrinkage stress, provides a high curing depth, excellent cavity adaptation, good surface properties, and causes less wearing of the opposing tooth due to superior characteristics of wear resistance [14,15]. BF-RBCs are based on different technologies, such as a stress decreasing monomer or intensified photo-initiators [16,17]. Radical Amplified Photopolymerization (RAP) catalyst technology and a proprietary filler technology are utilized in PaBF. Such technologies claim to enhance the degree of conversion (curing) and improve the surface properties of PaBF compared with BF-RBC materials utilizing different technologies [14]. The question is whether the physicomechanical properties of PaBF support its clinical use without a capping layer. Indeed, studies evaluating this recently introduced no-cap flowable BF-RBC are lacking. Therefore, the aim of this study is to conduct a thorough investigation to compare the physico-mechanical properties of PaBF to two BF-RBCs of different consistencies. The null hypotheses was that there would be no statistically significant differences between the (1) flexural strength, (2) microhardness, (3) surface roughness, and (4) color stability of the three BF-RBCs tested.

2. Materials and Methods

The materials used in the study, in addition to their compositions, are described in Table 1.

2.1. Flexural Strength Evaluation

A total of twelve specimens of each group were prepared using silicone molds (25 mm length × 2 mm width × 2 mm height) to prepare bar-shaped specimens (n = 6) at room temperature. Each RBC specimen was irradiated (light-cured) according to the manufacturer’s instructions in five overlapping points (40 s each) on the top surfaces starting from the periphery and moving sideways to the opposite end of the specimen using a (EliparTM S10, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) operated at 1000 mW/cm2 as verified by a hand-held radiometer (Bluephase Meter, Ivoclar Vivadent, Austria). The light-curing tip was kept at approximately 1 mm and at 0 angle to the specimen. Half of the specimens of each group were tested for flexural strength after storage in distilled water for 24 h at 37 °C, while the other half of the specimens were tested after storage in distilled water for 30 days at 37 °C. The flexural strength was evaluated using a three-point bending method with a 20 mm span and 1 mm/min cross-speed in a universal testing machine (an Instron 5965 testing machine; Norwood, MA, USA) (Figure 1). Prior to testing, the thickness of each specimen was measured using a digital micrometer (Mitutoyo, Tokyo, Japan) at the center and at each end of the test specimen. The load at fracture and specimen dimensions were used to calculate the flexural strength in MPa according to the following formula:
σ = 3 f l 2 b h 2
F is the maximum force applied in Newtons, l is the distance between the two points of support as measured in millimeters, b is the width of the RBC specimen as measured in millimeters, and h is the height of the RBC specimen in millimeters.

2.2. Vicker’s Microhardness (VMH) Evaluation

A total of 12 cylindrical (4 × 6 mm) BF-RBC specimens were prepared using a silicone mold on a polyethylene terephthalate strip and light cured according to the manufacturer’s instructions using a light-emitting-dione (LED) light curing unit (EliparTM S10, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) operated at 1000 mW/cm2 as verified by a hand-held radiometer (Bluephase Meter, Ivoclar Vivadent, Bürs, Austria). The light-curing tip was kept at approximately 1 mm and at 0 angle to the specimen. Each experimental group was stored in an incubator for 24 h at 37 °C and used for microhardness assessment. Half of the specimens of each experimental group (n = 6) were tested at 24 h, while the other half (n = 6) was tested after 30 days of water storage at 37 °C. Five indents were made using a pyramidal Vickers indenter (INNOVATEST Europe BV, Maastricht, The Netherlands) (Figure 2) with a 10-N load and a dwell time of 15 s. The indentations made were approximately 0.5 mm apart from each other. The size of each indentation was measured using a built-in microscope at ×50 and the Vickers hardness number (VHN) was calculated based on the following formula: VMH = 1.854(f/d2), while F is the force applied and d2 is the surface area of the indentation. The five VMH measurements of each specimen were averaged to obtain a single mean.

2.3. Surface Roughness (Ra) Evaluation

BF-RBC material was inserted in a silicone mold of 2 mm thickness and 8 mm diameter on a polyethylene terephthalate strip, covered with another on a polyethylene terephthalate strip, and then light cured according to manufacturer’s instructions using a light-emitting-dione (LED) light curing unit (EliparTM S10, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) operated at 1000 mW/cm2 as verified by a hand-held radiometer (Bluephase Meter, Ivoclar Vivadent, Austria). The light-curing tip was kept at approximately 1 mm and at 0 angle to the specimen. BF-RBC samples (n = 6) were kept in distilled water for 24 h, then finished and polished using aluminum oxide discs (Sof-Lex, 3M, St. Paul, MN, USA) for 10 s for each disc. The kit has four discs (coarse, medium, fine, and superfine). Rinsing with water and air-drying were performed between each disc. Half of the specimens of each group were tested for surface roughness (Ra) after storage in distilled water for 24 h at 37 °C, while the other half of the specimens were tested after storage in distilled water for 30 days at 37 °C. The Ra of each RBC specimen was evaluated using a high-resolution three-dimensional (3D) non-contact optical profiler (Contour GT-K 3D Optical Microscope, Bruker®, Billerica, MA, USA). The specimens were vertically scanned at 5× Michelson magnification and at a field of view of 1 × 1 mm. The scan speed was 1×, and the thresholding was 4. The software used for the analysis and graphical output was Vision 64 (Bruker, Billerica, MA, USA). Four scans were obtained and averaged for each specimen.

2.4. Assessment of Color Change

A total of six samples of each group (material) were prepared using a silicone mold on a polyethylene terephthalate strip and light cured according to the manufacturer’s instructions using a light-emitting-diode (LED) light curing unit (EliparTM S10, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) operated at 1000 mW/cm2 as verified by a hand-held radiometer (Bluephase Meter, Ivoclar Vivadent, Austria). The light-curing tip was kept at approximately 1 mm and at 0 angle to the specimen. BF-RBC materials were packed into the mold and then covered by another polyethylene terephthalate strip and light-cured according to the manufacturer’s instructions. A clinical spectrophotometer (VITA Easyshade Advance 4.0, Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany) was calibrated according to the manufacturer’s instructions and used to measure the color of each RBC specimen immediately following the light-curing according to the manufacturer’s instructions, and after the 30-day water aging. The spectrophotometer’s CIE-LAB values provide a numerical representation of a 3D measure of color as described in previous studies [18,19]. Readings of L*, a* and b* were performed three times against the same background (black) and the mean value used. Total color change was calculated using the following formula:
ΔE = (ΔL*2 + Δa*2 + Δb*2)1/2

2.5. Statistical Analysis

A Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to assess the data normality of the obtained results. A Kruskal–Wallis test and a Mann–Whitney test at a significance level of α = 0.05 were used to statistically analyze the flexural strength, surface roughness, and surface microhardness, and color change data were used to statistically analyze color stability data using the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) version 22.

3. Results

3.1. Flexural Strength

The mean ± standard deviation (SD) and flexural strength (MPa) of BF-RBC materials is numerically described in Table 2. OneBF presented the highest flexural strength compared with PaBF at 24 h (p = 0.044) and after 30 days of water storage (p = 0.004), and compared with SDRf at 24 h (p = 0.002) and after 30 days of water storage (p = 0.024), and at 24 h and after 30 days of water storage. Water storage significantly reduced the flexural strength of the three BF-RBC materials (Figure 3).

3.2. Vicker’s Microhardness (VMH)

The mean ± SD VMH of BF-RBC materials is numerically described in Table 3. OneBF showed significantly higher VMH compared with SDRf at 24 h (p < 0.001) and after 30 days of water storage (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between VMH of PaBF and OneBF at 24 h and after 30 days of water storage. Water storage did not have a significant effect on the VMH of the three BF-RBC materials.

3.3. Surface Roughness (Ra)

There was no statistically significant difference between the Ra of the three BF-RBC materials at 24 h (p = 0.050). However, after water storage, OneBF presented significantly higher Ra compared with PaBF (p = 0.012) (Table 4, Figure 4).

3.4. Color Change

OneBF showed significantly less color change compared with PaBF and SDRf (p < 0.001), while there was no statistically significant difference between the color change of the two flowable BF-RBC materials (SDRf and PaBF) (p = 0.136) or between SDRf and OneBF (p = 0.198) (Table 5).

4. Discussion

Thorough laboratory (in-vitro) evaluations of recently introduced dental restorative materials are required before clinical studies using such materials can be performed [20] in order to assess whether the physico-mechanical properties of no-cap bulk-fill flowable composite PaBF support its clinical use without a capping layer. This study was designed to evaluate the flexural strength, microhardness, surface roughness, and color stability of PaBF. PaBF was compared to two categories of bulk-fill composite materials; one that should be used clinically with a capping layer (SDRf), and the other can be used clinically without a capping layer (OneBF).
Dental restorations are usually subjected to a cyclic load during mastication (chewing). Mechanical failure (fracture) is one main cause of failure which decreases the clinical longevity of posterior RBC restorations [21]. This, in part, can be correlated with the mechanical properties of the RBC material used [22], such as flexural strength and microhardness. In this study, flexural strength, a bulk mechanical property of RBC, was evaluated, as it can estimate the resistance of RBC restorations to both compressive and tensile stresses simultaneously generated during chewing, which can then be used to characterize the mechanical properties of new restorative materials [23]. The forces of mastication cannot only lead to fracture, but also to the wearing of RBC restorations. Therefore, microhardness, a surface mechanical property of RBC, was assessed, as it can predict the wear resistance of BF-RBC restoration [24]. While microhardness can be assessed using different methods, the Vickers hardness method is recommended for RBC materials [25,26], and therefore it was used in this study.
It was hypothesized that there would be no statistically significant difference between the (1) flexural strength, and (2) microhardness of the three BF-RBCs tested. The results of this study indicate that the regular consistency of OneBF presented statistically higher flexural strength and microhardness than both the flowable composites (PaBF or SDRf) tested. Therefore, the first and second null hypotheses had to be rejected. It was assumed that increasing the filler content of the RBC materials would improve their mechanical properties and wear resistance [23]. The flexural strength of RBC materials is directly related to the filler content [27], which explains the significant difference between the mean flexural strength of OneBF with a filler content of 76.5 wt% and 58.4 vol% and SDRf with a filler content of 68 wt% and 45 vol%. Nevertheless, PaBF with a filler content of 70 wt% and 56 vol% presented less flexural strength compared to OneBF, but was higher than SDRf. Other factors such as the resin matrix composition might play a role in the RBC mechanical properties such as flexural strength [27,28]. The resin matrix of OneBF consists of aromatic urethane dimethacrylate (AUDMA), which is a high-molecular-weight monomer that minimizes the reactive groups in the resin chain; this enhances the rigidity of the final polymeric matrix upon the polymerization process [29,30]. Moreover, the addition-fragmentation chain transfer monomers (AFM) used in OneBF can improve polymer network homogeneity, which could lead to the enhanced mechanical properties of OneBF [31,32]. This finding is in accordance with recent studies in which OneBF presented superior flexural strength and microhardness [33,34] due to both its filler content and resin-matrix composition.
RBC surface properties such as surface roughness can affect the esthetic outcome of RBC restorations [35], which can be attributed to changes in color reflectance and stains accumulation onto RBC restorations. In addition, RBC restorations with a rough surface may be more associated with biofilm formation [36], which can result in marginal staining and further recurrent caries formation. It was hypothesized that there would be no statistically significant difference between the surface roughness of the three BF–RBCs tested. The results of this study indicate that both PaBF and SDRf presented less surface roughness compared with OneBF. Thus, the third hypothesis was rejected. The surface roughness of RBC materials may be more related to the composition of RBC material rather than other factors, such as polishing protocols [37]. Among the RBC materials tested, only PaBF contains monodispersing supra-sano spherical fillers [14], which would afford a smooth surface with less surface roughness. Meanwhile, the superior surface roughness of SDRf compared to OneBF can be explained by the reduced filler/resin ratio of SDRf. It has been reported that RBC with a low filler/resin ratio (low viscosity) may have less surface roughness [38]. It has been suggested that a surface roughness threshold of 0.2 µm is a critical value above which dental plaque accumulation might occur, favoring both caries and periodontal inflammation development [39].
RBC restorations are tooth-colored esthetic restorations. Intraorally, they are subjected to different fluids of variable pH and temperature. In fact, RBC properties such as surface roughness and color stability become altered over time [10]. Therefore, in order to simulate the intra-oral conditions, the tested BF-RBC materials were stored in water for 30 days to evaluate the internal color change. It is well known that water storage can result in the color changes of RBC materials [40]. It was hypothesized that there would be no statistically significant difference between the color stability of the three BF-RBCs tested. In this study, OneBF and PaBF presented adequate color stability compared with SDRf. Therefore, the fourth null hypothesis was also rejected. This finding can be explained by the filler/resin ratio of the three BF-RBC materials, as both OneBF and PaBF have more filler/resin ratio than SDRf. RBC materials with less filler/resin might show more color change over time [41], which may be due to RBC water absorption [23]. This study is limited by the lack of long-term artificial aging, which would have a more prominent effect on the mechanical properties of BF–RBC materials. Despite such limitations, the results of this study provide information on a recently introduced restorative material (no-cap flowable bulk-fill composite) used clinically. Further studies are recommended in order to evaluate the mechanical behavior of restorations made with OneBF and PaBF.

5. Conclusions

The physico-mechanical properties of PaBF do not support the use of PaBF without a capping layer in occlusal stress-bearing areas. Therefore, PaBF use without a capping layer should be limited to a small restoration with minimal occlusal stresses. PaBF showed less flexural strength and microhardness, but showed less surface roughness. Further long-term evaluations of wear resistance and fracture toughness are required.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.A. (Abdullah Alshehriand) and A.A. (Abdulrahman Alshabib); methodology, A.A. (Abdullah Alshehriand); software, A.R; validation, E.I.; formal analysis, M.A.S.A.; investigation, F.A. (Faisal Alzamil) and N.A.; resources, A.A. and H.A.; data curation, A.R.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A.S.A. and F.A. (Feras Alhalabi); writing—review and edit-ing, A.A. (Abdullah Alshehriand) and H.A.; visualization, E.I.; supervision, A.A. (Abdullah Alshehriand) and A.A. (Abdulrahman Alshabib); project administration, A.A. (Abdullah Alshehriand) and F.A. (Feras Alhalabi); funding acquisition, A.A. (Abdullah Alshehriand). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study is supported with funding from Prince Sattam bin abdulaziz University, project number (PSAU/2023/R/1444).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lynch, C.D.; Opdam, N.J.; Hickel, R.; Brunton, P.A.; Gurgan, S.; Kakaboura, A.; Shearer, A.C.; Vanherle, G.; Wilson, N.H. Guidance on posterior resin composites: Academy of Operative Dentistry-European Section. J. Dent. 2014, 42, 377–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Yadav, R.; Kumar, M. Dental restorative composite materials: A review. J. Oral Biosci. 2019, 61, 78–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Abbasi, M.; Moradi, Z.; Mirzaei, M.; Kharazifard, M.J.; Rezaei, S. Polymerization Shrinkage of Five Bulk-Fill Composite Resins in Comparison with a Conventional Composite Resin. J. Dent. 2018, 15, 365–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Parasher, A.; Ginjupalli, K.; Somayaji, K.; Kabbinale, P. Comparative evaluation of the depth of cure and surface roughness of bulk-fill composites: An in vitro study. Dent. Med. Probl. 2020, 57, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Grazioli, G.; Cuevas-Suárez, C.E.; Nakanishi, L.; Francia, A.; de Moraes, R.R. Physicochemical characterization of two bulk fill composites at different depths. Restor. Dent. Endod. 2021, 46, e39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. de Camargo, E.J.; Moreschi, E.; Baseggio, W.; Cury, J.A.; Pascotto, R.C. Composite depth of cure using four polymerization techniques. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2009, 17, 446–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Reis, A.F.; Vestphal, M.; Amaral, R.C.D.; Rodrigues, J.A.; Roulet, J.F.; Roscoe, M.G. Efficiency of polymerization of bulk-fill composite resins: A systematic review. Braz. Oral Res. 2017, 31, e59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Haugen, H.J.; Marovic, D.; Par, M.; Thieu, M.K.L.; Reseland, J.E.; Johnsen, G.F. Bulk Fill Composites Have Similar Performance to Conventional Dental Composites. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 5136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Tomaszewska, I.M.; Kearns, J.O.; Ilie, N.; Fleming, G.J. Bulk fill restoratives: To cap or not to cap--that is the question? J. Dent. 2015, 43, 309–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Bollen, C.M.; Lambrechts, P.; Quirynen, M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: A review of the literature. Dent. Mater. 1997, 13, 258–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Paolone, G.; Formiga, S.; De Palma, F.; Abbruzzese, L.; Chirico, L.; Scolavino, S.; Goracci, C.; Cantatore, G.; Vichi, A. Color stability of resin-based composites: Staining procedures with liquids-A narrative review. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2022, 34, 865–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Quek, S.H.Q.; Yap, A.U.J.; Rosa, V.; Tan, K.B.C.; Teoh, K.H. Effect of staining beverages on color and translucency of CAD/CAM composites. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2018, 30, E9–E17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sarafianou, A.; Iosifidou, S.; Papadopoulos, T.; Eliades, G. Color stability and degree of cure of direct composite restoratives after accelerated aging. Oper. Dent. 2007, 32, 406–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. PALFIQUE® BULK FLOW Technical Report. Available online: http://www.tokuyama-dental.com/tdc/pdf/technicalreport/PALFIQUE_BULK_FLOW_technical_report_ver1.pdf (accessed on 25 June 2022).
  15. Algamaiah, H.; Watts, D.C. Post-irradiation surface viscoelastic integrity of photo-polymerized resin-based composites. Dent. Mater. 2021, 37, 1828–1833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ilie, N.; Hickel, R. Investigations on a methacrylate-based flowable composite based on the SDR™ technology. Dent. Mater. 2011, 27, 348–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Gan, J.K.; Yap, A.U.; Cheong, J.W.; Arista, N.; Tan, C. Bulk-Fill Composites: Effectiveness of Cure With Poly- and Monowave Curing Lights and Modes. Oper. Dent. 2018, 43, 136–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Miletic, V.; Marjanovic, J.; Veljovic, D.N.; Stasic, J.N.; Petrovic, V. Color stability of bulk-fill and universal composite restorations with dissimilar dentin replacement materials. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2019, 31, 520–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Marjanovic, J.; Veljovic, D.N.; Stasic, J.N.; Savic-Stankovic, T.; Trifkovic, B.; Miletic, V. Optical properties of composite restorations influenced by dissimilar dentin restoratives. Dent. Mater. 2018, 34, 737–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Roulet, J.F. Is in vitro research in restorative dentistry useless? J. Adhes. Dent. 2012, 14, 103–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Opdam, N.J.; van de Sande, F.H.; Bronkhorst, E.; Cenci, M.S.; Bottenberg, P.; Pallesen, U.; Gaengler, P.; Lindberg, A.; Huysmans, M.C.; van Dijken, J.W. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Dent. Res. 2014, 93, 943–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Demarco, F.F.; Corrêa, M.B.; Cenci, M.S.; Moraes, R.R.; Opdam, N.J. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: Not only a matter of materials. Dent. Mater. 2012, 28, 87–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ilie, N.; Hickel, R. Investigations on mechanical behaviour of dental composites. Clin. Oral Investig. 2009, 13, 427–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Say, E.C.; Civelek, A.; Nobecourt, A.; Ersoy, M.; Guleryuz, C. Wear and microhardness of different resin composite materials. Oper. Dent. 2003, 28, 628–634. [Google Scholar]
  25. Topcu, F.T.; Erdemir, U.; Sahinkesen, G.; Yildiz, E.; Uslan, I.; Acikel, C. Evaluation of microhardness, surface roughness, and wear behavior of different types of resin composites polymerized with two different light sources. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2010, 92, 470–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Francis, N.; Rajan, R.R.; Kumar, V.; Varughese, A.; Karuveetil, V.; Sapna, C.M. Effect of irradiance from curing units on the microhardness of composite—A systematic review. Evid. Based Dent. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rodrigues Junior, S.A.; Zanchi, C.H.; Carvalho, R.V.; Demarco, F.F. Flexural strength and modulus of elasticity of different types of resin-based composites. Braz. Oral Res. 2007, 21, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Asmussen, E.; Peutzfeldt, A. Influence of UEDMA BisGMA and TEGDMA on selected mechanical properties of experimental resin composites. Dent. Mater. 1998, 14, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. 3M Oral Care3M™ Filtek™ One Bulk Fill Restorative Technical Product Profile. Available online: https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1317671O/3m-filtek-one-bulk-fill-restorative-technical-product-profile.pdf&fn=Filtek%20One%20Bulk%20Fill%20Technical%20Product%20Profile_NA_R2.pdf (accessed on 3 May 2022).
  30. Eweis, A.H.; Yap, A.U.; Yahya, N.A. Comparison of Flexural Properties of Bulk-fill Restorative/Flowable Composites and Their Conventional Counterparts. Oper. Dent. 2020, 45, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Braga, R.R.; Ballester, R.Y.; Ferracane, J.L. Factors involved in the development of polymerization shrinkage stress in resin-composites: A systematic review. Dent. Mater. 2005, 21, 962–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Shah, P.K.; Stansbury, J.W.; Bowman, C.N. Application of an addition–fragmentation-chain transfer monomer in di (meth) acrylate network formation to reduce polymerization shrinkage stress. Polym. Chem. 2017, 8, 4339–4351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Hasanain, F.A.; Nassar, H.M.; Ajaj, R.A. Effect of Light Curing Distance on Microhardness Profiles of Bulk-Fill Resin Composites. Polymers 2022, 14, 528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Yeo, H.W.; Loo, M.Y.; Alkhabaz, M.; Li, K.C.; Choi, J.J.E.; Barazanchi, A. Bulk-Fill Direct Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Assessment of Their Physio-Mechanical Properties. Oral 2021, 1, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Paravina, R.D.; Roeder, L.; Lu, H.; Vogel, K.; Powers, J.M. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on surface roughness, gloss and color of resin-based composites. Am. J. Dent. 2004, 17, 262–266. [Google Scholar]
  36. Park, J.W.; Song, C.W.; Jung, J.H.; Ahn, S.J.; Ferracane, J.L. The effects of surface roughness of composite resin on biofilm formation of Streptococcus mutans in the presence of saliva. Oper. Dent. 2012, 37, 532–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Rigo, L.C.; Bordin, D.; Fardin, V.P.; Coelho, P.G.; Bromage, T.G.; Reis, A.; Hirata, R. Influence of Polishing System on the Surface Roughness of Flowable and Regular-Viscosity Bulk Fill Composites. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2018, 38, e79–e86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Hassan, A.M.; Nabih, S.M.; Mossa, H.M.; Baroudi, K. The effect of three polishing systems on surface roughness of flowable, microhybrid, and packable resin composites. J. Int. Soc. Prev. Community Dent. 2015, 5, 242–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Lu, H.; Roeder, L.B.; Lei, L.; Powers, J.M. Effect of surface roughness on stain resistance of dental resin composites. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2005, 17, 102–108, discussion 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Shamszadeh, S.; Sheikh-Al-Eslamian, S.M.; Hasani, E.; Abrandabadi, A.N.; Panahandeh, N. Color Stability of the Bulk-Fill Composite Resins with Different Thickness in Response to Coffee/Water Immersion. Int. J. Dent. 2016, 2016, 7186140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Yu, B.; Lee, Y.K. Comparison of the color stability of flowable and universal resin composites. Am. J. Dent. 2009, 22, 160–164. [Google Scholar]
Polymers 15 01847 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of flexural strength evaluation.
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of flexural strength evaluation.
Polymers 15 01847 g001
Polymers 15 01847 g002 550
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of Vicker’s Microhardness (VMH) evaluation.
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of Vicker’s Microhardness (VMH) evaluation.
Polymers 15 01847 g002
Polymers 15 01847 g003 550
Figure 3. Comparison between the flexural strength of BF-RBC materials at 24 h and after 30 days of water storage. *: indicates statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) within each group.
Figure 3. Comparison between the flexural strength of BF-RBC materials at 24 h and after 30 days of water storage. *: indicates statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) within each group.
Polymers 15 01847 g003
Polymers 15 01847 g004 550
Figure 4. Comparison between the surface roughness (Ra) of BF-RBC materials at 24 h and after 30-days of water storage. * indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) within each group.
Figure 4. Comparison between the surface roughness (Ra) of BF-RBC materials at 24 h and after 30-days of water storage. * indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) within each group.
Polymers 15 01847 g004
Table
Table 1. Materials used in the study.
Table 1. Materials used in the study.
Material (Manufacturer)CodeCompositionFiller Load
wt%/vol%.
Palfique Bulk flow (Tokuyama Dental, Tokyo, Japan)PaBFBis-GMA, TEGDMA, Bis-MPEPP, Mequinol, Dibutyl hydroxyl toluene and UV absorber70/56%
SDR Flow composite (Dentsply Sirona Charlotte, NC, USA)SDRfModified UDMA, ethoxylated ethoxylated Bisphenol A dimethacrylate, and TEGDMA, resins. The filler is a combination of Bari-um-alumino-fluoro-borosilicate glass and strontium alumino-fluoro-silicate glass68/45%
One Bulk fill (3M, St. Paul, MN, USA)OneBFZirconia/ silica cluster, itterbium trifluoride, AUDMA, UDMA, DDDMAA, AFM76.5/58.5%
Bis-GMA: Bisphenol-A glycidyl dimethacrylate, TEGDMA: Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, Bis-MPEPP: Bisphenol A polyethoxy methacrylate, UDMA: Urethane dimethacrylate, AUDMA: aromatic urethane dimethacrylate, DDDMAA: 1, 12-Dodecanediol dimethacrylate, AFM: addition fragmentation monomer, Bis-EMA: Bisphenol-A ethoxylated dimethacrylate.
Table
Table 2. Mean ± Standard deviation flexural strength of BF-RBC materials at 24 h and after 30 days of water storage.
Table 2. Mean ± Standard deviation flexural strength of BF-RBC materials at 24 h and after 30 days of water storage.
GroupFlexural Strength (24 h)
(Mean ± SD)		Flexural Strength (30 days)
(Mean ± SD)		Flexural Strength Loss
(%)
PaBF130.97 ± 6.71 a67.51 ± 15.69 A48.45
SDRf134.58 ± 9.26 a57.23 ± 11.96 A57.47
OneBF238.82 ± 19.79 b106.17 ± 12.40 B55.54
Different superscript letters indicate a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the groups at 24 h (small letters) and after 30 days of water storage (capital letters).
Table
Table 3. Mean ± standard deviation Vicker’s microhardness (VMH) of BF-RBC materials at 24 h and 30 days of water storage.
Table 3. Mean ± standard deviation Vicker’s microhardness (VMH) of BF-RBC materials at 24 h and 30 days of water storage.
GroupVMH (24 h)
(Mean ± SD)		VMH (30 days)
(Mean ± SD)		Microhardness Loss
(%)
PaBF36.2750 ± 0.59 a,b36.135 ± 0.37 A,B0.38
SDRf18.45 ± 0.21 a18.41 ± 0.18 A0.21
OneBF65.51 ± 1.40 b68.83 ± 2.35 B−5.06
Different superscript letters indicate a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the groups at 24 h (small letters) and after 30 days of water storage (capital letters).
Table
Table 4. Surface roughness (Ra) of BF-RBC materials at 24 h and after 30-days water storage.
Table 4. Surface roughness (Ra) of BF-RBC materials at 24 h and after 30-days water storage.
GroupSurface Roughness (Ra) [μm] (24 h)Surface Roughness (Ra) [μm] (30 days)Surface Roughness Increase
PaBF0.16 ± 0.07 a0.27 ± 0.09 A68.75
SDRf0.15 ± 0.04 a0.34 ± 0.10 A,B126.6
OneBF0.33 ± 0.15 a0.49 ± 0.124 B48.48
Different superscript letters indicate a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the groups at 24 h (small letters) and after 30 days of water storage (capital letters).
Table
Table 5. Mean ± Standard deviation color change of BF-RBC materials after 30 days of water storage.
Table 5. Mean ± Standard deviation color change of BF-RBC materials after 30 days of water storage.
GroupColor Change (ΔE)
PaBF20.72 ± 2.565 A,B
SDRf11.55 ± 2.803 B
OneBF5.057 ± 1.664 C
Different superscript letters indicate a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the groups.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alshehri, A.; Alhalabi, F.; Robaian, A.; Abuelqomsan, M.A.S.; Alshabib, A.; Ismail, E.; Alzamil, F.; Alotaibi, N.; Algamaiah, H. No-Cap Flowable Bulk-Fill Composite: Physico-Mechanical Assessment. Polymers 2023, 15, 1847. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15081847

AMA Style

Alshehri A, Alhalabi F, Robaian A, Abuelqomsan MAS, Alshabib A, Ismail E, Alzamil F, Alotaibi N, Algamaiah H. No-Cap Flowable Bulk-Fill Composite: Physico-Mechanical Assessment. Polymers. 2023; 15(8):1847. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15081847

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alshehri, Abdullah, Feras Alhalabi, Ali Robaian, Mohammed A. S. Abuelqomsan, Abdulrahman Alshabib, Eman Ismail, Faisal Alzamil, Nawaf Alotaibi, and Hamad Algamaiah. 2023. "No-Cap Flowable Bulk-Fill Composite: Physico-Mechanical Assessment" Polymers 15, no. 8: 1847. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15081847

APA Style

Alshehri, A., Alhalabi, F., Robaian, A., Abuelqomsan, M. A. S., Alshabib, A., Ismail, E., Alzamil, F., Alotaibi, N., & Algamaiah, H. (2023). No-Cap Flowable Bulk-Fill Composite: Physico-Mechanical Assessment. Polymers, 15(8), 1847. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15081847

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop