Bulk Fill Composites Have Similar Performance to Conventional Dental Composites.

The aim of the study was to perform comprehensive characterization of two commonly used bulk fill composite materials (SDR Flow (SDR) and Filtek™ Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative (FBF) and one conventional composite material (Tetric EvoCeram; TEC). Eleven parameters were examined: flexural strength (FS), flexural modulus (FM), degree of conversion, depth of cure, polymerisation shrinkage (PS), filler particle morphology, filler mass fraction, Vickers hardness, surface roughness following simulated toothbrush abrasion, monomer elution, and cytotoxic reaction of human gingival fibroblasts, osteoblasts, and cancer cells. The degree of conversion and depth of cure were the highest for SDR, followed by FBF and TEC, but there was no difference in PS between them. FS was higher for bulk fill materials, while their FM and hardness were lower than those of TEC. Surface roughness decreased in the order TEC→SDR→FBF. Bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (BisGMA) and urethane dimethacrylate were found in TEC and FBF eluates, while SDR released BisGMA and triethylene glycol dimethacrylate. Conditioned media accumulated for 24h from FBF and TEC were cytotoxic to primary human osteoblasts. Compared to the conventional composite, the tested bulk fill materials performed equally or better in most of the tests, except for their hardness, elastic modulus, and biocompatibility with osteoblasts.

Can CAD/CAM resin blocks be considered as substitute for conventional resins?

OBJECTIVE: Dentists are facing a myriad of new CAD/CAM product for dental filling therapies. Are the new materials any worthwhile using? Are they succeeding the standard filling materials? Here we compare for the first time the new resin-composite blocks (RCBs) with conventional materials (Filtek Z250 and Tetric EvoCeram). METHODS: The material were tested for residual monomer elution by HPLC, thermogravimetric analysis (TG) was used to determine the percentage of fillers by weight, hardness was evaluated by Vickers method, morphology of fillers and distribution in the matrix were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), elemental analysis for elemental determination of the filler particles was performed by energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) cytotoxicity using human gingival fibroblasts and an epithelial cell line. RESULTS: The RBC outperformed conventional composite regarding mechanical characteristics (hardness) and monomer eluation, but showed some worrisome results regarding cytotoxicity. SIGNIFICANCE: The cost benefit is not in favour of RBCs in comparison to conventional composites, as the cytotoxicity was found higher for RBCs.