Display options
Share it on

J Conserv Dent. 2016 Jan-Feb;19(1):21-5. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.173188.

The bond strength of highly filled flowable composites placed in two different configuration factors.

Journal of conservative dentistry : JCD

Omer Sagsoz, Nurcan Ozakar Ilday, Ozcan Karatas, Muhammed Cayabatmaz, Hatice Parlak, Melek Hilal Olmez, Sezer Demirbuga

Affiliations

  1. Department of Restorative Treatment, Faculty of Dentistry, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey.
  2. Department of Restorative Treatment, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey.

PMID: 26957788 PMCID: PMC4760007 DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.173188

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of different flowable composite resins placed in different configuration factors (C-factors) into Class I cavities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty freshly extracted human molars were divided into 10 groups. Five different composite resins; a universal flowable composite (AeliteFlo, BISCO), two highly filled flowable composites (GrandioSO Flow, VOCO; GrandioSO Heavy Flow, VOCO), a bulk-fill flowable composite (smart dentin replacement [SDR], Dentsply), and a conventional paste-like composite (Filtek Supreme XT, 3M ESPE) were placed into Class I cavities (4 mm deep) with 1 mm or 2 mm layers. Restored teeth were sectioned vertically with a slow-speed diamond saw (Isomet 1000, Buehler) and four micro-specimens (1 mm × 1 mm) were obtained from each tooth (n = 20). Specimens were subjected to μTBS test. Data were recorded and statistically analyzed with two-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post-hoc test. Fractured surfaces were examined using a scanning electron microscope.

RESULTS: The μTBS in SDR-1 mm were higher than other groups, where Filtek Supreme XT-2 mm and GrandioSO Flow-2 mm were lower. No significant differences were found between C-factors for any composite resin (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Bulk-fill flowable composite provided more satisfactory μTBS than others. Different C-factors did not affect mean μTBS of the materials tested.

Keywords: Dental bonding; electron microscopy; polymerization; scanning

References

  1. Dent Mater. 2005 Feb;21(2):110-24 - PubMed
  2. Dent Mater. 2011 Apr;27(4):348-55 - PubMed
  3. Dent Mater. 2013 Mar;29(3):269-77 - PubMed
  4. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013 Sep;71(5):1296-302 - PubMed
  5. Clin Oral Investig. 2011 Apr;15(2):291-5 - PubMed
  6. Dent Mater. 2003 Nov;19(7):597-602 - PubMed
  7. Quintessence Int. 1986 Oct;17(10):659-64 - PubMed
  8. Dent Mater. 2001 May;17(3):268-76 - PubMed
  9. Microsc Microanal. 2010 Dec;16(6):779-84 - PubMed
  10. J Conserv Dent. 2011 Apr;14(2):164-8 - PubMed
  11. Dent Mater. 2004 Jul;20(6):579-85 - PubMed
  12. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2012;122(4):294-9 - PubMed
  13. J Am Dent Assoc. 2003 Jun;134(6):721-8 - PubMed
  14. Dent Mater. 2009 Jan;25(1):129-34 - PubMed
  15. J Conserv Dent. 2015 Jan-Feb;18(1):56-61 - PubMed
  16. J Dent Res. 1987 Nov;66(11):1636-9 - PubMed
  17. J Adhes Dent. 2013 Jun;15(3):245-50 - PubMed
  18. J Conserv Dent. 2011 Jan;14(1):52-6 - PubMed

Publication Types