Flexural strength of dental composite restoratives: comparison of biaxial and three-point bending test.

Abstract

This study compared two test methods used to evaluate the flexural strength of resin-based dental composites. The two test methods evaluated were the three-point bending test4 and the biaxial flexural test. Materials used in this investigation were from the same manufacturer (3M ESPE) and included microfill (A110), minifill (Z100 and Filtek Z250), polyacid modified (F2000), and flowable [Filtek Flowable (FF)] composites. Flexural strength was determined with the use of both test methods after 1 week of conditioning in water at 37 degrees C. Data were analyzed with the use of an ANOVA/Scheffe test and an independent-samples t test at significance level 0.05. Mean flexural strength (n = 7) ranged from 66.61 to 147.21 and 67.27 to 182.81 MPa for three-point bending and ball-on-three-ball biaxial test methods, respectively. In both test methods, Z100 was significantly stronger than all other composites evaluated. In the three-point bending test, flexural strength of Z250 was significantly higher than A110, F2000 and FF, and FF was significantly stronger than A110 and F2000. The biaxial test method arrived at the same conclusions except that there was no significant difference between Z250 and FF. Pearson's correlation revealed a significantly (p < 0.01) positive and good correlation (R2 = 0.72) in flexural strength between the two test methods. Although the biaxial test has the advantage of utilizing small specimens, the low reproducibility of this test method does not support the proposition that it is a more reliable test method when compared to the ISO three-point bending test.