Restor Dent Endod.  2015 Nov;40(4):262-270. 10.5395/rde.2015.40.4.262.

Comparison of mechanical properties of a new fiber reinforced composite and bulk filling composites

• Abouelleil H
• Pradelle N
• Villat C
• Attik N
• Colon P
• Grosgogeat B

• KMID: 2316945
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2015.40.4.262

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to evaluate the mechanical and physical properties of a newly developed fiber reinforced dental composite.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Fiber reinforced composite EverX Posterior (EXP, GC EUROPE), and other commercially available bulk fill composites, including Filtek Bulk Fill (FB, 3M ESPE), SonicFill (SF, Kerr Corp.), SureFil (SDR, Dentsply), Venus Bulk Fill (VB, HerausKultzer), Tetric evoceram bulk fill (TECB, Ivoclar Vivadent), and Xtra Base (XB, Voco) were characterized. Composite samples light-cured with a LED device were evaluated in terms of flexural strength, flexural modulus (ISO 4049, n = 6), fracture toughness (n = 6), and Vickers hardness (0, 2, and 4 mm in depth at 24 hr, n = 5). The EXP samples and the fracture surface were observed under a scanning electron microscopy. Data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and unpaired t-test.
RESULTS
EXP, FB, and VB had significantly higher fracture toughness value compared to all the other bulk composite types. SF, EXP, and XB were not statistically different, and had significantly higher flexural strength values compared to other tested composite materials. EXP had the highest flexural modulus, VB had the lowest values. Vickers hardness values revealed SF, EXP, TECB, and XB were not statistically different, and had significantly higher values compared to other tested composite materials. SEM observations show well dispersed fibers working as a reinforcing phase.
CONCLUSIONS
The addition of fibers to methacrylate-based matrix results in composites with either comparable or superior mechanical properties compared to the other bulk fill materials tested.

Keyword

Bulk composite; Fiber composite; Mechanical properties

MeSH Terms

Hardness
Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
Venus

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Bar graph illustrating fracture toughness (KIC). Straight line indicates that there was no statistically significant difference between the groups. TECB, Tetric evoceram bulk fill; SDR, SureFil SDR; XB, Xtra Base; SF, SonicFill; VB, Venus bulk fill; FB, Filtek bulk fill; EXP, EverX Posterior.

• 

  Figure 2 Bar graph illustrating Vickers hardness (N/mm2) at different curing depths of 4 mm, 2 mm and at the surface. Dotted line (-----) indicates that there was no statistically significant difference between the materials. Straight line (——) indicates that there was no statistically significant difference within the same material at different curing depths. TECB, Tetric evoceram bulk fill; SDR, SureFil SDR; XB, Xtra Base; SF, SonicFill; VB, Venus bulk fill; FB, Filtek bulk fill; EXP, EverX Posterior.

• 

  Figure 3 Scanning electron photomicrograph of fracture toughness sample (a) after failure; (b) the fiber orientation across the failure line are shown at higher magnification.

• 

  Figure 4 Microscopic image of EverX Posterior showing fiber length extending to the length of one millimeter and up to two milimeters.

• 

  Figure 5 Samples of (a) fracture toughness and (b) flexural strength tests for EverX Posterior remained connected after failure, compared to other bulk composite samples after (c) fracture toughness and (d) flexural strength, which were completely separated into two fragments.

Reference

1. Pallesen U, van Dijken JW, Halken J, Hallonsten AL, Höigaard R. Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in permanent teeth in Public Dental Health Service: a prospective 8 years follow up. J Dent. 2013; 41:297–306.

2. Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater. 2012; 28:87–101.

3. Sarrett DC. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater. 2005; 21:9–20.

4. Cramer NB, Stansbury JW, Bowman CN. Recent advances and developments in composite dental restorative materials. J Dent Res. 2011; 90:402–416.

5. Ferracane JL. Resin composite-state of the art. Dent Mater. 2011; 27:29–38.

6. Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Donassollo TA, Cenci MS, Loguércio AD, Moraes RR, Bronkhorst EM, Opdam NJ, Demarco FF. 22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. Dent Mater. 2011; 27:955–963.

7. Walter R. Critical appraisal: bulk-fill flowable composite resins. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013; 25:72–76.

8. Moorthy A, Hogg CH, Dowling AH, Grufferty BF, Benetti AR, Fleming GJ. Cuspal deflection and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with bulk-fill flowable resin-based composite base materials. J Dent. 2012; 40:500–505.

9. Ilie N, Bucuta S, Draenert M. Bulk-fill resin-based composites: an in vitro assessment of their mechanical performance. Oper Dent. 2013; 38:618–625.

10. Leprince JG, Palin WM, Vanacker J, Sabbagh J, Devaux J, Leloup G. Physico-mechanical characteristics of commercially available bulk-fill composites. J Dent. 2014; 42:993–1000.

11. Ilie N, Hickel R, Valceanu AS, Huth KC. Fracture toughness of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig. 2012; 16:489–498.

12. El-Safty S, Silikas N, Watts DC. Creep deformation of restorative resin-composites intended for bulk-fill placement. Dent Mater. 2012; 28:928–935.

13. Alshali RZ, Silikas N, Satterthwaite JD. Degree of conversion of bulk-fill compared to conventional resin-composites at two time intervals. Dent Mater. 2013; 29:e213–e217.

14. Van Ende A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B. Bulk-filling of high C-factor posterior cavities: effect on adhesion to cavity-bottom dentin. Dent Mater. 2013; 29:269–277.

15. Roggendorf MJ, Krämer N, Appelt A, Naumann M, Frankenberger R. Marginal quality of flowable 4-mm base vs. conventionally layered resin composite. J Dent. 2011; 39:643–647.

16. Poggio C, Dagna A, Chiesa M, Colombo M, Scribante A. Surface roughness of flowable resin composites eroded by acidic and alcoholic drinks. J Conserv Dent. 2012; 15:137–140.

17. Finan L, Palin WM, Moskwa N, McGinley EL, Fleming GJ. The influence of irradiation potential on the degree of conversion and mechanical properties of two bulk-fill flowable RBC base materials. Dent Mater. 2013; 29:906–912.

18. Garoushi S, Säilynoja E, Vallittu PK, Lassila L. Physical properties and depth of cure of a new short fiber reinforced composite. Dent Mater. 2013; 29:835–841.

19. Heintze SD, Zimmerli B. Relevance of in vitro tests of adhesive and composite dental materials, a review in 3 parts. Part 1: approval requirements and standardized testing of composite materials according to ISO specifications. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2011; 121:804–816.

20. Alander P, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK. The span length and cross-sectional design affect values of strength. Dent Mater. 2005; 21:347–353.

21. Czasch P, Ilie N. In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites. Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17:227–235.

22. Xu HH, Schumacher GE, Eichmiller FC, Peterson RC, Antonucci JM, Mueller HJ. Continuous-fiber preform reinforcement of dental resin composite restorations. Dent Mater. 2003; 19:523–530.

23. Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV. Short glass fiber reinforced restorative composite resin with semi-inter penetrating polymer network matrix. Dent Mater. 2007; 23:1356–1362.

24. Petersen RC. Discontinuous fiber-reinforced composites above critical length. J Dent Res. 2005; 84:365–370.

25. Leprince JG, Leveque P, Nysten B, Gallez B, Devaux J, Leloup G. New insight into the "depth of cure" of dimethacrylate-based dental composites. Dent Mater. 2012; 28:512–520.

26. Flury S, Hayoz S, Peutzfeldt A, Hüsler J, Lussi A. Depth of cure of resin composites: is the ISO 4049 method suitable for bulk fill materials? Dent Mater. 2012; 28:521–528.

27. Galvão MR, Caldas SG, Bagnato VS, de Souza Rastelli AN, de Andrade MF. Evaluation of degree of conversion and hardness of dental composites photo-activated with different light guide tips. Eur J Dent. 2013; 7:86–93.

28. Polydorou O, Manolakis A, Hellwig E, Hahn P. Evaluation of the curing depth of two translucent composite materials using a halogen and two LED curing units. Clin Oral Investig. 2008; 12:45–51.

29. Yap AU, Seneviratne C. Influence of light energy density on effectiveness of composite cure. Oper Dent. 2001; 26:460–466.