Comparison between Different Bulk-Fill and Incremental Composite Materials Used for Class II Restorations in Primary and Permanent Teeth: In Vitro Assessments.

introductionSeveral advantages, including improved aesthetics and conservative cavity preparation, made resin-based composite (RBC) a popular restorative material. However, several limitations come with RBC restorations such as the necessity for proper isolation of the tooth and an incremental layering for the material due to the limitations of the depth of cure. Despite these advantages and limitations, the usage of these restorative materials is increasingly being expanded due to the advancement made since their introduction. To overcome some of the limitations, several types of RBC restorations were developed. MATERIALS AND

methodsFour different RBC materials used for class II restorations in primary and permanent teeth were compared: Z350 XT Filtek™ Universal Restorative (ZXT), Filtek™ Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative (FBF), Beautifil-Bulk Flowable (BBF) and Tetric™ N-Flow (TNF). Flexure strength, elastic modulus, surface roughness, microhardness and microleakage were assessed using standard methods or previously published protocols. The data and differences between the groups were analyzed using One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey's multiple comparisons, Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) tests.

resultsThe study found that BBF (86.24 ± 7.41 MPa) and ZXT (64.45 ± 11.52 MPa) had higher flexural strength than FBF (50.89 ± 8.44 MPa) and TNF (50.67 ± 9.40 MPa), while both exhibited the highest values of surface roughness. Elastic modulus was the highest with BBF, which was not statistically significant from FBF or ZXT (

conclusionsDifferent types of RBC restorations exhibit different characteristics. The clinician needs to choose the most appropriate restorative material based on different clinical scenarios.