OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to characterize the surface morphology and the elastic properties of four dental restorative flowable composites currently on the market (Venus Diamond Flow, Vertise Flow, Filtex Supreme XT Flow, Surefil SDR Flow). Additionally, one adhesive system (Adhese One F) and one non-flowable composite (Venus Diamond) have also been characterized as the control materials. METHODS: Surface morphology was studied by both scanning electron and atomic force microscopy, and the elastic modulus and the hardness measured by instrumented indentation. Grain analysis was performed on the microscopic images, and statistical analysis was carried out on the results of the nanoindentation measurements. RESULTS: It was observed that Vertise, Filtek XT and Surefil SDR exhibit stiffness similar to the non-flowable Venus Diamond, whereas Venus Diamond Flow presents itself as the more compliant flowable composite, with Adhese showing intermediate stiffness. Grain analysis of the images confirmed the general rule that the mechanical properties improve with increasing filler loading, with the notable exception of Vertise Flow that shows modulus and hardness as high as 9.1±0.6 and 0.43±0.03GPa, respectively, for an estimated loading of only ∼40% by volume. SIGNIFICANCE: Whereas generally flowable composites are confirmed not to possess sufficiently strong mechanical properties for bulk restorations, exceptions can eventually be found upon appropriate laboratory screening, as presently seems to be the case for Vertise Flow. However, real practice in actual restorations and respective clinical evaluation are required for final assessment of the suggested results.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to characterize the surface morphology and the elastic properties of four dental restorative flowable composites currently on the market (Venus Diamond Flow, Vertise Flow, Filtex Supreme XT Flow, Surefil SDR Flow). Additionally, one adhesive system (Adhese One F) and one non-flowable composite (Venus Diamond) have also been characterized as the control materials. METHODS: Surface morphology was studied by both scanning electron and atomic force microscopy, and the elastic modulus and the hardness measured by instrumented indentation. Grain analysis was performed on the microscopic images, and statistical analysis was carried out on the results of the nanoindentation measurements. RESULTS: It was observed that Vertise, Filtek XT and Surefil SDR exhibit stiffness similar to the non-flowable Venus Diamond, whereas Venus Diamond Flow presents itself as the more compliant flowable composite, with Adhese showing intermediate stiffness. Grain analysis of the images confirmed the general rule that the mechanical properties improve with increasing filler loading, with the notable exception of Vertise Flow that shows modulus and hardness as high as 9.1±0.6 and 0.43±0.03GPa, respectively, for an estimated loading of only ∼40% by volume. SIGNIFICANCE: Whereas generally flowable composites are confirmed not to possess sufficiently strong mechanical properties for bulk restorations, exceptions can eventually be found upon appropriate laboratory screening, as presently seems to be the case for Vertise Flow. However, real practice in actual restorations and respective clinical evaluation are required for final assessment of the suggested results.
Authors: Vesna Miletic; Pong Pongprueksa; Jan De Munck; Neil R Brooks; Bart Van Meerbeek Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Rodrigo R Maia; Rodrigo S Reis; André F V Moro; Cesar R Perez; Bárbara M Pessôa; Katia R H C Dias Journal: PeerJ Date: 2015-06-09 Impact factor: 2.984