The effect of bulk-fill flowable composites on the fracture resistance and cuspal deflection of endodontically treated premolars

Toz, Tuğba; Tuncer, Safa; Bozkurt, Funda Öztürk; Tuncer, Aysun Kara; Bağ, Harika Gözükara

doi:10.1080/01694243.2015.1037381

Cited by 18 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, it seems that SonicFill bulk-fill composite alone is sufficiently strong for tooth restoration and does not require a veneering layer. Our findings in this respect were in line with those of Atalay et al, [33], Toz et al, [46], Ozturk-Bozkurt et al, [47] and Yasa et al [48].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Fracture Resistance of a Bulk-Fill and a Conventional Composite and a Combination of Both for Coronal Restoration of Severely Damaged Primary Anterior Teeth

Mosharrafian¹,

Shafizadeh²,

Sharifi³

2019

fid

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the fracture resistance of a bulk-fill and a conventional composite and a combination of both for coronal restoration of severely damaged primary anterior teeth. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro experimental study, 45 primary anterior teeth were randomly divided into three groups. After root canal preparation, the canals were filled with Metapex paste such that after the application of 1 mm of light-cure liner, 3 mm of the coronal third of the canal remained empty for composite post fabrication. Filtek Z250 conventional composite was used in group 1, Sonic-Fill bulk-fill composite was used in group 2 and Sonic-Fill with one layer of Filtek Z250 as the veneering were used in group 3. Adper Single Bond 2 was used in all groups. The teeth were thermocycled, and fracture resistance was measured by a universal testing machine. The mode of fracture was categorized as repairable or irreparable. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA. Results: The mean fracture resistance was 307.00±74.72, 323.31±84.28 and 333.30±63.96 N in groups 1 to 3, respectively (P=0.55). The mean fracture strength was 14.53±2.98, 15.08±2.82 and 15.26±3.02 MPa in groups 1 to 3, respectively (P=0.77). The frequency of repairable mode of failure was 80% for the conventional, 73.6% for the bulk-fill and 80% for the bulk-fill plus conventional group, with no significant difference (P>0.05). Conclusions: Bulk-fill composites can be used for coronal reconstruction of severely damaged primary anterior teeth similar to conventional composites to decrease the treatment time in pediatric patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Fracture Resistance of a Bulk-Fill and a Conventional Composite and a Combination of Both for Coronal Restoration of Severely Damaged Primary Anterior Teeth

Mosharrafian¹,

Shafizadeh²,

Sharifi³

2019

fid

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Microscopic image of everX Posterior showed fiber length extending to the range of 1 mm and up to 2 mm. In the present study, the majority of fractures, with everX Posterior bulk-fill composites were type II, i.e., they were defined as restorable which is in contrast with the study results of Yasa et al 15 and Toz et al 30…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 93%

In vitroEvaluation of Fracture Resistance of Endodontically treated Teeth restored with Bulk-fill, Bulk-fill Flowable, Fiber-reinforced, and Conventional Resin Composite

2018

Journal of Operative Dentistry &Amp; Endodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: This original research was carried out to assess the susceptibility to fracture of root canal treated teeth with composite postendodontic restorations.Materials and methods: Seventy-two sound human mandibular premolar teeth, extracted for various reasons, were selected. For experimental purposes, they were then divided into six groups (n = 12). Groups I and II were designated the negative control (no preparation done) and positive control (cavity preparation was done but left unrestored) respectively. In all other teeth, mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavities were prepared, and they were then root canal treated. The other groups were also restored with the respective resins: group III: condensable bulk-fill composite, group IV: bulk-fill flowable resin composite, group V: fiber-reinforced composite, and group VI: conventional resin-based composite. Manufacturerrecommended adhesive systems for respective restorative resins were used.To avoid desiccation of the specimens, they were kept in distilled water for 24 hours at body temperature. The specimens were then subjected to compressive loads until they fractured. Statistical analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey tests.Results: Statistically significant results were observed among all groups. The highest and lowest values were noted with groups I and II respectively (p = 0.05). Conclusion:The resistance to fracture in root canal-treated teeth with everX Posterior, fiber-reinforced bulk-fill composite was the highest.

show abstract

“…In the present study, bulk-fill flowable composite showed similar fracture strength values with high-flow composite and conventional microhybrid composite. These findings are in agreement with the study of Toz et al, who reported no difference between the fracture strengths of bulk-fill flowable composite and conventional resin composite restorations in endodontically-treated teeth (31). Furthermore, another study evaluated the fracture resistance of endodontically-treated teeth restored using nano-hybrid composite resin, bulk-fill flowable, and short fiber-reinforced composite in the absence/presence of retention slots.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Evaluation of Fracture Strength and Total Void Amount in Composite Restorations on Endodontically Treated Teeth

Tekçe

Aydemir

Demırcı

et al. 2021

Odovtos - Int J Dent Sc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of the study was to investigate the fracture strength of different composite resins and the quantity of voids in conventional posterior composite, high-flow flowable composite, bulk-fill flowable composite, and fiber-reinforced composite. Materials and Methods: Forty-four caries-free, freshly extracted mandibular premolars were used for this study. Teeth were prepared for cavity and root canal treatment. Subsequently, root canal treatment was applied to the teeth and cavities in order to prepare them for restorations. The specimens were then divided into four groups: group-1: Estelite Posterior; group-2: Estelite Flow Quick High Flow; group-3: Estelite Bulk-fill Flow; group-4: everX Posterior. One specimen from each experimental group was examined using micro-CT to perform measurement of voids. Results: The fracture strength values of high-flow flowable, bulk-fill flowable, fiber-reinforced, and conventional micro-hybrid composites were found to be similar (p=0.497). EverX Posterior showed the highest fracture strength values (841.1±149.4 N), followed by Estelite Bulk-fill Flow (822.8±170.8 N). Conclusion: Volume of voids (%) obtained from Micro-CT analysis revealed that restorations with high-flow liner or bulk-fill flowable exhibited more voids. The fiber-reinforced composite showed the lowest percentage volume of incorporating voids and the highest fracture strength results.

show abstract

The effect of bulk-fill flowable composites on the fracture resistance and cuspal deflection of endodontically treated premolars

Cited by 18 publications

References 40 publications

Fracture Resistance of a Bulk-Fill and a Conventional Composite and a Combination of Both for Coronal Restoration of Severely Damaged Primary Anterior Teeth

Fracture Resistance of a Bulk-Fill and a Conventional Composite and a Combination of Both for Coronal Restoration of Severely Damaged Primary Anterior Teeth

In vitroEvaluation of Fracture Resistance of Endodontically treated Teeth restored with Bulk-fill, Bulk-fill Flowable, Fiber-reinforced, and Conventional Resin Composite

Evaluation of Fracture Strength and Total Void Amount in Composite Restorations on Endodontically Treated Teeth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About