Comparison of Flexural Properties of Bulk-fill Restorative/Flowable Composites and Their Conventional Counterparts

The objectives of the study were to compare the flexural modulus and strength of restorative and flowable bulk-fill resin-based composites (RBCs) to their conventional counterparts and to determine the effects of conditioning environment on their flexural properties. The materials evaluated included three conventional RBCs (Filtek Z350, Tetric N Ceram, and Beautifil II), three restorative bulk-fill RBCs (Filtek Bulk-Fill Restorative, Tetric N Ceram Bulk-Fill, and Beautifil Bulk-fill Restorative), as well as three flowable bulk-fill RBCs (Filtek Bulk-Fill Flowable, Tetric N Flow Bulk-Fill, and Beautifil Bulk-Fill Flowable). Specimens were fabricated using customized stainless-steel molds, finished, measured, and randomly divided into four groups. The various RBCs were conditioned in the following mediums (n=10) for seven days at 37°C: air, artificial saliva (SAGF), 0.02 N citric acid, and 50% ethanol-water solution. After conditioning, the specimens were rinsed, blotted dry, measured, and subjected to flexural testing using a universal testing machine. Data were subjected to statistical analysis using analysis of variance and the Tukey test at a significance level of α = 0.05. Significant differences in flexural properties were observed between materials and conditioning mediums. Bulk-fill restorative RBCs exhibited higher flexural modulus than their bulk-fill flowable and conventional counterparts. With the exception of Filtek Bulk-Fill Flowable, bulk-fill flowable RBCs had significantly higher flexural strength than bulk-fill restorative and conventional RBCs. Flexural properties were highest when RBCs were conditioned in air and generally the lowest after exposure to ethanol.