Correlation Engine 2.0
Clear Search sequence regions

  • bisphenol (2)
  • fibroblasts (1)
  • fill (9)
  • flow (1)
  • glycol (1)
  • human (3)
  • osteoblasts (4)
  • resins (2)
  • tetric evoceram (2)
  • Sizes of these terms reflect their relevance to your search.

    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.


    Håvard J Haugen, Danijela Marovic, Matej Par, Minh Khai Le Thieu, Janne E Reseland, Gaute Floer Johnsen. Bulk Fill Composites Have Similar Performance to Conventional Dental Composites. International journal of molecular sciences. 2020 Jul 20;21(14)

    Expand section icon Mesh Tags

    Expand section icon Substances

    PMID: 32698509

    View Full Text