Abstract
Composites are in great demand due to the esthetic needs of the patients, which explains a wide variation in the types of available composites. However, the mechanical strength of the materials is questionable. Therefore, the mechanical properties of the newly available bulk-fill composites have been tested. The main objective of the study was to compare the depth of cure (DOC) and surface roughness of 3 different bulk-fill composites: X-tra fil® (XTF), Tetric EvoCeram® Bulk Fill (TEC) and Beautifil® Bulk Restorative (BBR). Fifty-seven (n = 19 in each group) samples were made using brass molds. All samples were subjected to Vickers hardness testing and profilometry. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used for the data analysis, followed by Tukey's post hoc test. The differences in the mean surface microhardness values of the materials were statistically significant (p < 0.001), with XTF showing the highest value. The TEC composite showed a higher surface roughness as compared to BBR and XTF. The results of the present study indicate that variations in the filler size and amount significantly influence the DOC and surface roughness of dental composites. Among the tested composites, the multi-hybrid composite exhibited superior DOC (XTF), whereas the nanohybrid composite exhibited superior surface finish (TEC).
Highlights
The growing demand for life-like restorations and the motivation of some dentists to provide mercuryfree, tooth-colored restorations have led to an increase in the use of resin-based composite (RBC) materials
Composites are in great demand due to the esthetic needs of the patients, which explains a wide variation in the types of available composites
The results of the present study indicate that variations in the filler size and amount significantly influence the depth of cure (DOC) and surface roughness of dental composites
Summary
The growing demand for life-like restorations and the motivation of some dentists to provide mercuryfree, tooth-colored restorations have led to an increase in the use of resin-based composite (RBC) materials. Most RBCs are supplied as light-activated materials and their clinical placement requires the incremental layering technique.[2]. The material has to be placed in layers to allow light penetration, which would ensure complete polymerization. This process is timeconsuming and may lead to the inclusion of voids in the restoration. Non-uniform curing may lead to uncured RBCs at the bottom or in between the increments, resulting in the restoration with inadequate strength and marginal leakage, and of a reduced longevity. Bulk-fill composites are newer restorative materials which are said to present improved cure, controlled polymerization contraction stresses and a reduced cuspal deflection; they are effectively photoactivated in layers up to 4 mm, and as such can be used in deep preparations.[4,5]. The mechanical properties of the newly available bulk-fill composites have been tested
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
