Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 5, 2026
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Self-adhesive flowable resin composite for occluso-proximal restorations in primary teeth: restorative time and
Tyler Zanella Brustolin1, Cleber Paradzinski Cavalheiro2, Duvan Cala Castillo3
1Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Faculdade de Odontologia, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.
Objective:
This in vitro study evaluated the restorative time and fracture resistance of occluso-proximal restorations in primary molars using a self-adhesive flowable resin composite, a flowable resin composite, and a conventional resin composite.
Methodology:
Thirty primary molars received two standardized occluso-proximal cavities and were randomly assigned to three groups (n=10): (1) self-adhesive flowable resin composite (Yflow SA), with the entire cavity restored; (2) universal adhesive (Scotchbond Universal) in self-etch mode + flowable resin composite (Filtek Z350 XT Flow), with the entire cavity restored; and (3) universal adhesive in self-etch mode + conventional resin composite (Filtek Z350 XT), inserted incrementally. Restoration time was measured using a digital chronometer, and all teeth underwent 14 days of pH cycling before the fracture resistance test. Mean fracture resistance values were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test. The Kruskal-Wallis and Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner tests were used to compare the restoration time among groups. Failure modes were analyzed descriptively.
Results:
The self-adhesive flowable resin composite required the shortest restoration time, followed by the flowable resin composite and the conventional resin composite (p<0.001). Fracture resistance was significantly lower in the self-adhesive flowable resin composite group compared to the flowable and conventional resin composite groups (p<0.01). Adhesive failures predominated in the self-adhesive flowable resin composite group (45%), while mixed failures were more frequent in the other restorative approaches (70-75%).
Conclusion:
In a laboratory setting, the use of a self-adhesive flowable resin composite for the entire cavity compromised the fracture resistance of occluso-proximal restorations in primary molars, despite reducing operative time.
