Comparative Evaluation Of Fracture Resistance Of Bulk-Fill and Conventional Resin Composites Used For The Restoration Of Endodontically Treated Teeth: An In-Vitro Study
Keywords:
N\AAbstract
Aim: To compare the fracture resistance of bulk-fill resin composites and conventional resin composites used to restore endodontically treated maxillary premolars.
Settings and Design: Academic, invitro study
Materials and Methods: After seeking approval from the institutional ethical committee following extracted premolars were selected, disinfected and , divided into six groups (n=15 each). Group 1 was left intact (control); Group 2 received endodontic treatment without restoration (positive control). Groups 3–6 received endodontic treatment and were restored with either bulk-fill (Beautifil Bulk, Prime Restorite) or conventional composites (Beautifil II, Dentsply Spectrum). Standard MOD cavity preparations and root canal procedures were performed. The restorations were done as per the respective manufacturer’s instructions. All specimens were mounted in acrylic and subjected to vertical compressive force using a Universal Testing Machine. Fracture loads were recorded in Newtons (N).
Statistical Analysis: Data were analysed using Shapiro-Wilk, ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test (p < 0.05).
Results: The intact group had the highest fracture resistance (1691.06 N), followed by Beautifil Bulk (1546 N), Dentsply Spectrum (1478.93 N), and Prime Restorite (1226.33 N). Beautifil II (755.27 N) and the positive control group (704 N) showed the lowest values. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences among most groups, except between Beautifil II and the positive control, suggesting limited reinforcement from Beautifil II.
Conclusion: Bulk-fill composites, especially Beautifil Bulk, significantly enhance the fracture resistance of ETTs and offer clinical advantages over conventional composites in terms of ease of application and reduced treatment time. These materials represent a promising solution for posterior restorations where high load resistance is required.
Downloads
References
Eakle W. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with class II bonded resin composite. J Dent Res. 1986;65;149-153.
Larson TD, Douglas WH, Geistfeld RE. Effect of prepared cavities on the strength of teeth. Oper Dent. 1981;6(1):2-5.
Salehrabi R, Rotstein I. Endodontic treatment outcomes in a large patient population in the USA: an epidemiological study. J Endod 2004;30:846–50.
Albers H F. Tooth-coloured restoratives: principles and techniques. 9th ed. PMPH-USA: BC Decker, 2002.
Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 2001;3: 45–64.
Pallesen U, van Dijken J W V. A randomized controlled 30 years follow up of three conventional resin composites in Class II restorations. Dent Mater 2015; 31: 1232–1244.
Chesterman J, Jowett A, Gallacher A, Nixon P. Bulk-fill resinbased composite restorative materials: a review. Br. Dent. J. 2017;222:337-344.
Bucuta S, Ilie N. Light transmittance and micro-mechanical properties of bulk fill vs. conventional resin-based composites. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(8):1991-2000.
Marovic D, Tauböck TT, Attin T, Panduric V, Tarle Z. Monomer conversion and shrinkage force kinetics of low-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites. Acta Odontol Scand. 2015;73(6):474-80.
Fokkinga WA, Le Bell AM, Kreulen CM, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK, Creugers NH. Ex vivo fractures resistance of direct resin composite complete crowns with and without posts on maxillary premolars. Int Endod J. 2005; 38:230–7.
Ilie N, Hickel R. Investigations on mechanical behaviour of dental composites. Clin. Oral Investig. 2009;13:427-438.
Mosharrafian S, Shafizadeh M, Sharifi Z. Fracture resistance of a bulk-fill and a conventional composite and the combination of both for coronal restoration of severely damaged primary anterior teeth. Frontiers in Dentistry. 2019 Jan;16(1):69.
Strini BS, Marques JF, Pereira R, Sobral-Souza DF, Pecorari VG, Liporoni PC, Aguiar FH. Comparative evaluation of bulk-fill composite resins: knoop microhardness, diametral tensile strength and degree of conversion. Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry. 2022 Dec 31:225-33.
Brosh T, Davidovitch M, Berg A, Shenhav A, Pilo R, Matalon S. Influence of Practitioner-Related Placement Variables on the Compressive Properties of Bulk-Fill Composite Resins—An In Vitro Clinical Simulation Study. Materials. 2022 Jun 17;15(12):4305.
Shafiei F, Dehghanian P, Ghaderi N, Doozandeh M. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with bulk-fill composite resins: The effect of fiber reinforcement. Dent Res J. 2021;19:18:60.
Abdel-Maksoud HB, Eid BM, Hamdy M, Abdelaal HM. Optimizing fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with preheated thermos-viscous composite post-thermocycling, a comparative study. Part I. BMC Oral Health. 2024 Mar 2;24(1):295.
Taha N, Palamara J, Messer H. Fracture strength and fracture patterns of root filled teeth restored with direct resin restorations. J. Dent. 2011;39:527-535.
Veera, L., Lertchirakarn, V., Timyam, A., & Messer, H. H. (2002). Effects of root canal sealers on vertical root fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. Journal of Endodontics, 28(3), 217-219.
Bucuta, S., & Ilie, N. (2014). Light transmittance and micro-mechanical properties of bulk fill vs. conventional resin-based composites. Clinical Oral Investigations, 18(8), 1991-2000.
Ilie N, Hickel R. Investigations on the mechanical behaviour of dental composites. Clinical oral investigations. 2009 Dec;13:427-38.
Hickel, R., & Manhart, J. (2001). Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 3(1), 45–64.
Versluis A, Douglas WH, Cross M, Sakaguchi RL. Does an incremental filling technique reduce polymerization shrinkage stresses? J Dent Res. 1996; 75:871–8.
Sufi, A., Plotino, G., Grande, N. M., et al. (2016). Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with a bulk-fill flowable material and a resin composite. Annals of Stomatology, 7, 4.
Strini BS, Marques JF, Pereira R, Sobral-Souza DF, Pecorari VG, Liporoni PC, Aguiar FH. Comparative evaluation of bulk-fill composite resins: knoop microhardness, diametral tensile strength and degree of conversion. Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry. 2022 Dec 31:225-33.
Atalay C, Yazici A, Horuztepe A, Nagas E, Ertan A, Ozgunaltay G. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with bulk fill, bulk fill flowable, fiber reinforced, and conventional resin composite. Oper. Dent. 2016;41:131-140.
Toz T, Tuncer S, Öztürk Bozkurt F, Kara Tuncer A, Gözükara Bağ H. The effect of bulk-fill flowable composites on the fracture resistance and cuspal deflection of endodontically treated premolars J Adhes Sci Technol. 2015;29:1581-1592.
Al-Ibraheemi ZA, Abdullah HA, Jawad NA, Haider J. Assessing fracture resistance of restored premolars with novel composite materials: an in vitro study. International Journal of Dentistry. 2021;2021(1):5512708.
Rosatto, C. J., Bicalho, A. A., Veríssimo, C., et al. (2015). Mechanical properties, shrinkage stress, cuspal strain and fracture resistance of molars restored with bulk-fill composites and incremental filling technique. Journal of Dentistry, 43, 1519-1528.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
