Volume 10, Issue 2 (6-2025)
J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2025, 10(2): 144-151 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.SBMU.RIDS.REC.1396.608
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Farahiparizi S, Tabari K, Torabzadeh H, Panahandeh N. Flexural Strength and Microshear Bond Strength of Conventional and Flowable Composite Resins to Dentin. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2025; 10 (2) :144-151
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-774-en.html
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-774-en.html
1- Dental Research Center, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
3- Dental Research Center, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. ,nargespanahandeh@yahoo.com
2- Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
3- Dental Research Center, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. ,
Abstract: (242 Views)
Background and Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the flexural strength (FS) and microshear bond strength (µSBS) of conventional and flowable composite resins to dentin.
Materials and Methods: This in vitro study was conducted on composite specimens fabricated from Filtek Z250 and Clearfil AP-X Esthetics (CE) conventional, and Clearfil AP-X Esthetics Flow (CEF) and Clearfil AP-X Flow (CF) flowable composite resins in 4 groups (n=10). The specimens underwent a 3-point bending test for measurement of their FS. For assessment of µSBS, dentin discs with 2 mm thickness were obtained from the coronal third of the crowns of 20 extracted premolars. Composite resins were bonded to dentin discs in Tygon tubes (1 mm height, 0.7 mm internal diameter) using Tetric N-Bond 5th generation bonding agent, and a universal testing machine measured their µSBS. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey test (alpha=0.05).
Results: Z250 showed a significantly higher FS than CEF (P=0.002); no other significant difference was found in FS. The two conventional composites (P=0.847) and the two flowable composites (P=0.575) had no significant difference with each other in µSBS. However, the conventional composites had a significantly higher µSBS than the flowable composites (P<0.001).
Conclusion: The FS of CEF was significantly lower than that of Z250, and comparable to that of other tested composite resins. All tested composites had a FS higher than 80 MPa recommended by ISO-4049 for restorations under occlusal forces. Both CEF and CF showed significantly lower µSBS than the tested conventional composite resins.
Materials and Methods: This in vitro study was conducted on composite specimens fabricated from Filtek Z250 and Clearfil AP-X Esthetics (CE) conventional, and Clearfil AP-X Esthetics Flow (CEF) and Clearfil AP-X Flow (CF) flowable composite resins in 4 groups (n=10). The specimens underwent a 3-point bending test for measurement of their FS. For assessment of µSBS, dentin discs with 2 mm thickness were obtained from the coronal third of the crowns of 20 extracted premolars. Composite resins were bonded to dentin discs in Tygon tubes (1 mm height, 0.7 mm internal diameter) using Tetric N-Bond 5th generation bonding agent, and a universal testing machine measured their µSBS. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey test (alpha=0.05).
Results: Z250 showed a significantly higher FS than CEF (P=0.002); no other significant difference was found in FS. The two conventional composites (P=0.847) and the two flowable composites (P=0.575) had no significant difference with each other in µSBS. However, the conventional composites had a significantly higher µSBS than the flowable composites (P<0.001).
Conclusion: The FS of CEF was significantly lower than that of Z250, and comparable to that of other tested composite resins. All tested composites had a FS higher than 80 MPa recommended by ISO-4049 for restorations under occlusal forces. Both CEF and CF showed significantly lower µSBS than the tested conventional composite resins.
Type of Study: Original article |
Subject:
Restorative Dentistry
References
1. Yap AU, Yap SH, Teo CK, Ng JJ. Finishing/polishing of composite and compomer restoratives: effectiveness of one-step systems. Oper Dent. 2004 May-Jun;29(3):275-9.
2. Attar N, Tam LE, McComb D. Flow, strength, stiffness and radiopacity of flowable resin composites. J Can Dent Assoc. 2003 Sep;69(8):516-21.
3. Dubernard C, Raynal P, Tramini P. Comparative study of enamel adhesion between RelyX™ Unicem® (3M), a self-adhesive bonding agent, and the combination of MIP® (3M), a hydrophilic adhesive, and Transbond Supreme Low Viscosity® (3M), a traditional hydrophobic adhesive. Int Orthod. 2013 Sep;11(3):247-61. [DOI:10.1016/j.ortho.2013.06.009] [PMID]
4. Pinzon LM, Watanabe LG, Reis AF, Powers JM, Marshall SJ, Marshall GW. Analysis of interfacial structure and bond strength of self-etch adhesives. Am J Dent. 2013 Dec;26(6):335-40.
5. Klein-Júnior CA, Zander-Grande C, Amaral R, Stanislawczuk R, Garcia EJ, Baumhardt-Neto R, et al. Evaporating solvents with a warm air-stream: effects on adhesive layer properties and resin-dentin bond strengths. J Dent. 2008 Aug;36(8):618-25. [DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2008.04.014] [PMID]
6. Reis A, Klein-Júnior CA, Accorinte Mde L, Grande RH, dos Santos CB, Loguercio AD. Effects of adhesive temperature on the early and 6-month dentin bonding. J Dent. 2009 Oct;37(10): 791-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2009.06.007] [PMID]
7. Phrukkanon S, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. The influence of cross-sectional shape and surface area on the microtensile bond test. Dent Mater. 1998 Jun;14(3):212-21. [DOI:10.1016/S0109-5641(98)00034-7] [PMID]
8. Andrade AM, Moura SK, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Garcia EJ, Grande RH. Evaluating resin-enamel bonds by microshear and microtensile bond strength tests: effects of composite resin. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010 Dec;18(6):591-8. [DOI:10.1590/S1678-77572010000600010] [PMID] []
9. Della Bona A. Characterizing ceramics and the interfacial adhesion to resin: I - The relationship of microstructure, composition, properties and fractography. J Appl Oral Sci. 2005 Mar;13(1):1-9. [DOI:10.1590/S1678-77572005000100002] [PMID]
10. Rodrigues SA, Jr., Ferracane JL, Della Bona A. Flexural strength and Weibull analysis of a microhybrid and a nanofill composite evaluated by 3- and 4-point bending tests. Dent Mater. 2008 Mar;24(3):426-31. [DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2007.05.013] [PMID]
11. Zeng K, Odén A, Rowcliffe D. Flexure tests on dental ceramics. Int J Prosthodont. 1996 Sep-Oct;9(5):434-9.
12. Musanje L, Ferracane JL. Effects of resin formulation and nanofiller surface treatment on the properties of experimental hybrid resin composite. Biomaterials. 2004 Aug;25(18): 4065-71. [DOI:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.11.003] [PMID]
13. Ferdianakis K. Microleakage reduction from newer esthetic restorative materials in permanent molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1998 Spring;22(3):221-9.
14. Payne JHt. The marginal seal of Class II restorations: flowable composite resin compared to injectable glass ionomer. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1999 Winter;23(2):123-30.
15. Boruziniat A, Gharaee S, Sarraf Shirazi A, Majidinia S, Vatanpour M. Evaluation of the efficacy of flowable composite as lining material on microleakage of composite resin restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Quintessence Int. 2016 Feb;47(2):93-101.
16. Lazarchik DA, Hammond BD, Sikes CL, Looney SW, Rueggeberg FA. Hardness comparison of bulk-filled/transtooth and incremental-filled/occlusally irradiated composite resins. J Prosthet Dent. 2007 Aug;98(2):129-40. [DOI:10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60046-8] [PMID]
17. Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift EJ, Jr., Stamatiades P, Wilkerson M. A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998 May;129(5):567-77. [DOI:10.14219/jada.archive.1998.0274] [PMID]
18. Irie M, Tjandrawinata R, E L, Yamashiro T, Kazuomi S. Flexural performance of flowable versus conventional light-cured composite resins in a long-term in vitro study. Dent Mater J. 2008 Mar;27(2):300-9. [DOI:10.4012/dmj.27.300] [PMID]
19. Standardization IOf. Dentistry-Polymer-based Restorative Materials, ISO, 2019.
20. Goracci C, Cadenaro M, Fontanive L, Giangrosso G, Juloski J, Vichi A, et al. Polymerization efficiency and flexural strength of low-stress restorative composites. Dent Mater. 2014 Jun;30(6):688-94. [DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2014.03.006] [PMID]
21. Chung SM, Yap AU, Chandra SP, Lim CT. Flexural strength of dental composite restoratives: comparison of biaxial and three-point bending test. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2004 Nov 15;71(2):278-83. [DOI:10.1002/jbm.b.30103] [PMID]
22. Moore BK, Platt JA, Borges G, Chu TM, Katsilieri I. Depth of cure of dental resin composites: ISO 4049 depth and microhardness of types of materials and shades. Oper Dent. 2008 Jul-Aug;33(4):408-12. [DOI:10.2341/07-104] [PMID]
23. Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Chen HY, Hickel R. Mechanical properties and wear behavior of light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater. 2000 Jan;16(1):33-40. [DOI:10.1016/S0109-5641(99)00082-2] [PMID]
24. Moszner N, Salz U. New developments of polymeric dental composites. Progress in polymer science. 2001;26(4):535-76. [DOI:10.1016/S0079-6700(01)00005-3]
25. Atai M, Watts DC. A new kinetic model for the photopolymerization shrinkage-strain of dental composites and resin-monomers. Dent Mater. 2006 Aug;22(8):785-91. [DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2006.02.009] [PMID]
26. Floyd CJ, Dickens SH. Network structure of Bis-GMA- and UDMA-based resin systems. Dent Mater. 2006 Dec;22(12): 1143-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2005.10.009] [PMID]
27. Lemon MT, Jones MS, Stansbury JW. Hydrogen bonding interactions in methacrylate monomers and polymers. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2007 Dec 1;83(3):734-46. [DOI:10.1002/jbm.a.31448] [PMID]
28. Barszczewska-Rybarek I, Jurczyk S. Comparative Study of Structure-Property Relationships in Polymer Networks Based on Bis-GMA, TEGDMA and Various Urethane-Dimethacrylates. Materials (Basel). 2015 Mar 19;8(3):1230-48. [DOI:10.3390/ma8031230] [PMID] []
29. Mair LH, Stolarski TA, Vowles RW, Lloyd CH. Wear: mechanisms, manifestations and measurement. Report of a workshop. J Dent. 1996 Jan-Mar;24(1-2):141-8. [DOI:10.1016/0300-5712(95)00043-7] [PMID]
30. Aydınoğlu A, Yoruç ABH. Effects of silane-modified fillers on properties of dental composite resin. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2017 Oct 1;79:382-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.msec.2017.04.151] [PMID]
31. Venhoven BA, de Gee AJ, Werner A, Davidson CL. Influence of filler parameters on the mechanical coherence of dental restorative resin composites. Biomaterials. 1996 Apr;17(7): 735-40. [DOI:10.1016/0142-9612(96)86744-5] [PMID]
32. Beatty MW, Swartz ML, Moore BK, Phillips RW, Roberts TA. Effect of microfiller fraction and silane treatment on resin composite properties. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998 Apr; 40(1):12-23.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199804)40:1<12::AID-JBM2>3.0.CO;2-U [DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199804)40:13.0.CO;2-U]
33. Soderholm K-JM. Filler systems an resin interface. Posterior composite resin dental restorative materials. 1985:139-59.
34. Nikolaenko SA, Lohbauer U, Roggendorf M, Petschelt A, Dasch W, Frankenberger R. Influence of c-factor and layering technique on microtensile bond strength to dentin. Dent Mater. 2004 Jul;20(6):579-85. [DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2003.08.001] [PMID]
35. Sagsoz O, Ilday NO, Karatas O, Cayabatmaz M, Parlak H, Olmez MH, et al. The bond strength of highly filled flowable composites placed in two different configuration factors. J Conserv Dent. 2016 Jan-Feb;19(1):21-5. [DOI:10.4103/0972-0707.173188] [PMID] []
36. Lu H, Lee YK, Oguri M, Powers JM. Properties of a dental resin composite with a spherical inorganic filler. Oper Dent. 2006 Nov-Dec;31(6):734-40. [DOI:10.2341/05-154] [PMID]
37. Dewaele M, Truffier-Boutry D, Devaux J, Leloup G. Volume contraction in photocured dental resins: the shrinkage-conversion relationship revisited. Dent Mater. 2006 Apr;22(4):359-65. [DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2005.03.014] [PMID]
38. Alonso RC, Cunha LG, Correr GM, Cunha Brandt W, Correr-Sobrinho L, Sinhoreti MA. Relationship between bond strength and marginal and internal adaptation of composite restorations photocured by different methods. Acta Odontol Scand. 2006 Oct;64(5):306-13. [DOI:10.1080/00016350600791744] [PMID]
39. Emami N, Söderholm KJ. How light irradiance and curing time affect monomer conversion in light-cured resin composites. Eur J Oral Sci. 2003 Dec;111(6):536-42. [DOI:10.1111/j.0909-8836.2003.00082.x] [PMID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
