Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Department of Advanced General Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, 6 Yothi Road, Ratchathewi District, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
Corresponding author, Piyapanna PUMPALUK; E-mail: piyapanna@hotmail.com
Various materials have been used for core build-up when restoring the coronal portion of the tooth. Currently, bulk-fill resin
composites have been produced to restore a large posterior cavity in single increment. This study aimed to evaluate the compressive
strength, flexural strength, and microhardness of three commercial composite core build-up materials. All data were analyzed by one-
way ANOVA and Tukey test methods (α=0.05). Flexural strength data were subjected to Weibull statistics analysis. All three groups
presented significant differences in the compressive strength, flexural strength, and Knoop hardness. FiltekTM Z350 XT had the
greatest compressive strength (MPa) and Knoop hardness while FiltekTM bulk fill had the highest flexural strength. MultiCore®Flow
had the lowest properties; however, it revealed the highest Weibull modulus (m) value. With regard to the properties tested in this
study, bulk-fill resin composite can be used as an alternative to conventional resin composite for core build-up material.
Keywords: Flexural strength, Weibull statistics, Core build-up material, Bulk fill, Resin composite
probability of failure were analyzed by Weibull analysis9) the other hand, FiltekTM Bulk fill had the greatest mean
using the flexural strength data. The following equation flexural strength (142.43 MPa), followed by FiltekTM
was used to evaluate the cumulative probability of Z350 (125.22 MPa) and MultiCore® Flow (114.71 MPa).
failure, Pf The result from the Weibull analyses (Fig. 1)
Pf =1−exp(−(σ/σ0)m)
Where Pf is the probability of failure, σ is the flexural
strength, σ0 is the characteristic strength (Pf =63.2%), m
is the Weibull modulus. Plotting ln[ln1/1−Pf )] against
lnσ will provide a slope with the value of the Weibull
modulus.
RESULTS
The results from the ANOVA analyses indicated that
there were significant differences at the 95% level
(p<0.05) in the mean compressive strength, flexural
strength, and Knoop hardness of three materials (Table
2). FiltekTM Z350 had the greatest compressive strength
and Knoop hardness, which were 283.43 MPa and 66.22
respectively, followed by FiltekTM Bulk fill (239.75 MPa,
48.99) and MultiCore® Flow (193.25 MPa, 40.69). On Fig. 1 Weibull analyses.
Table 2 Mean values of compressive strength (MPa, n=15), flexural strength (MPa, n=35), Knoop hardness (n=5) and
Weibull statistic values
FiltekTM Z350 283.43 (19.04) 125.22 (10.84) 66.22 (1.86) 11.38 131.83 0.89
FiltekTM
Bulk fill 239.75 (16.58) 142.43 (10.77) 48.99 (1.66) 15.76 147.21 0.95
MultiCore® Flow 193.25 (16.15) 114.71 (8.73) 40.69 (1.83) 16.60 118.03 0.99
Fig. 2 Images showing internal pores at the fracture surfaces of three materials at ×300; (A) FiltekTM Z350,
(B) FiltekTM Bulk fill, (C) Multicore®Flow and at ×700, (D) FiltekTM Z350, (E) FiltekTM Bulk fill, (F)
Multicore®Flow.
180 Dent Mater J 2019; 38(2): 177–181
showed that MultiCore® Flow had the greatest Weibull contained in FiltekTMZ350 and MultiCore®Flow leads to
modulus (16.60), followed by FiltekTM Bulk fill (15.76) lower flexural strength compared to FiltekTMBulk fill.
and FiltekTM Z350 (11.38). The characteristic strengths Weibull statistics relate to the reliability of
of FiltekTM Bulk fill, FiltekTM Z350 and MultiCore® Flow the material in use. It does this by providing the
were 147.21, 131.83 and114.71 MPa, respectively. probability of failure. Simple measurement of fracture
The SEM images (Fig. 2) show the defects associated strength alone cannot predict structure failure. That
with the fracture sites. FiltekTM Z350 had the largest is because it provides an insight into only the stresses
porosity size, while MultiCore®Flow had the lowest size that the material will withstand for a given flaw size
of such defects. distribution15). On the other hand, the Weibull modulus
(m) is a parameter that describes the variability of the
DISCUSSION strength of brittle materials. A high Weibull modulus
indicates higher reliability of materials16). In addition,
Mechanical properties are important factors for the materials with a high Weibull modulus are more
success of core build-up restorative dental materials. predictable and less likely to break at a stress much
This is because they must withstand the forces due to lower than a mean experimental value17). The second
mastication and para-function. This study evaluated parameter of the Weibull analysis is the characteristic
some of the properties, including compressive strength, strength (σ). This is a parameter that corresponds to
flexural strength, and Knoop hardness (KHN) of three the stress level giving a 63.2% probability of failure7,18).
resin composite materials. The null hypothesis of Thus Weibull characteristic strength values (Pf =63.2%)
this study was rejected, since there were statistically are slightly greater than the mean strength values
significant differences in the properties of the three (Pf =50%).
groups. The results of this study demonstrated that In this study, Multicore®Flow has a Weibull modulus
FiltekTMZ350 had the greatest compressive strength (m) higher than other groups. This may be because of
and Knoop hardness, whereas FiltekTMBulk fill had the the lower viscosity of uncured Multicore®Flow, As a
greatest flexural strength. These results confirm an result surface defects within the material are reduced
earlier conclusion11) that bulk fill resin-based composites and crack propagation is minimized. SEM analysis
show lower mechanical properties (except for flexural confirms this result, showing the smallest defects on the
strength) than nanohybrid and microhybrid resin-based fractured surfaces (Figs. 2C and F). FiltekTM Bulk fill has
composites. similar m value to Multicore®Flow while FiltekTMZ350
It is known that the mechanical properties of the has the lowest m value. The result from SEM of the
composites are related to their filler contents12) and to FiltekTMZ350 group (Figs. 2A and D) showed that there
the type and size of filler13). From the composition (Table were the largest porosities on the fracture surfaces. These
1), FiltekTMZ350 has a higher filler content (78.5 wt%, porosities may result from the placement technique that
59.5 vol%) than FiltekTMBulk fill (76.5 wt%, 42.5 vol%) involves building up the material in multiple increments.
and MultiCore®Flow (54.65 wt%, 46 vol%). For the filler This technique necessitates higher chair time and
types, silica and zirconia fillers are found in FiltekTMZ350 increases the risk of voids and contamination between
and FiltekTMBulk fill, whereas MultiCore®Flow layers. Another factor responsible for the gaps in the
contains barium glass and silicon dioxide fillers. Bulk material is clinical skill of the operator. The operator
fill composite materials have been developed to offer that carefully performed and strictly followed according
low polymerization shrinkage, easy use and improved to the manufacturer’s instruction will give the good
depth of cure. When it is necessary to increase the clinical outcome. One study revealed that operator skill
depth of penetration of the light initiating the cure, the and experience play a major role in the post-operative
amount of filler particles has to be reduced. Therefore, sensitivity outcome19). Therefore, materials that use
FiltekTMBulk fill has lower compressive strength and a bulk technique tend to provide smaller gaps than do
hardness compared to FiltekTMZ350. MultiCore®Flow conventional resin composites that using an incremental
has the lowest filler content and also has no zirconia technique. Furthermore, in this study, FiltekTM Bulk fill
in its composition. Consequently, it has the lowest had a similar m value as an earlier study which had
strength. Nevertheless, all three materials tested were m=14.211). On the other hand, it was higher than that
found to have compressive strength values (>100 MPa) found by Vidhawan et al.7) In addition, the m value of
greater than the minimum value (50 MPa) recommended FiltekTMZ350 in this project (m=11.38) is higher than
for dental amalgam, which is clinically well-proven for that reported as m=8.320) These differences in m value
core build-up2). could be due to the differences in methodology used in
Both filler morphology and filler loading influence the earlier work.
the flexural strength, flexural modulus, and hardness12). Although the strength of core build-up material is
Moreover, the type of monomer in the matrix influences the factor that influenced the fracture resistance of the
these properties. One study14) reported that monomer abutment, the matching moduli between the material
containing Bis-GMA or TEGDMA substituted by UDMA and the dentin is also important. If there is too mismatch
results in an increase in flexural strength. Also that of the elastic values, interfacial stress may occur from
substitution of Bis-GMA by TEGDMA reduces the either thermal, mechanical, or shrinkage strain in the
flexural strength14). In this study, TEGDMA monomer material21). Therefore, core build-up material should
Dent Mater J 2019; 38(2): 177–181 181
have high elastic modulus similar to tooth structure to vitro appraisal. Dent Mater 2015; 31: 1068-1074.
withstand the forces of mastication and polymerization 8) Kournetas N, Tzoutzas I, Eliades G. Monomer conversion in
dual-cured core buildup materials. Oper Dent 2011; 36: 92-
shrinkage stresses22). The elastic modulus values of
97.
FiltekTM Z350, FiltekTM Bulk fill and Multicore® were 9) Weibull W. Statistical distribution function of wide
reported approximately 1423), 10.123) and 924) Gpa, applicability. J Appl Mech 1951; 18: 293-297.
respectively. Flexural strength of dentin ranged from 10) International Standard Organization (ISO). Dentistry–
245 to 280 MPa25). and modulus of elasticity of dentin Polymer-based restorative materials; 2009: ISO4049.
ranged from 11–20 Gpa26). Therefore, FiltekTM Z350 has 11) Ilie N, Bucuta S, Draenert M. Bulk-fill resin-based composites:
strength and modulus value approaches to dentin’s more an in vitro assessment of their mechanical performance. Oper
Dent 2013; 38: 618-625.
than other groups. 12) Kim KH, Ong JL, Okuno O. The effect of filler loading and
morphology on the mechanical properties of contemporary
CONCLUSION composites. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87: 642-649.
13) Li Y, Swartz ML, Phillips RW, Moore BK, Roberts TA. Effect
Three chosen core build-up materials have significant of filler content and size on properties of composites. J Dent
differences in compressive strength, flexural strength Res 1985; 64: 1396-1401.
14) Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A. Influence of UEDMA BisGMA and
and Knoop hardness. FiltekTMZ350 has the highest mean
TEGDMA on selected mechanical properties of experimental
compressive strength and Knoop hardness whereas resin composites. Dent Mater 1998; 14: 51-56.
FiltekTMBulk fill have the highest flexural strength. 15) Kelly JR. Perspectives on strength. Dent Mater 1995; 11: 103-
MultiCore®Flow and FiltekTMBulk fill have higher 110.
Weibull modulus than FiltekTMZ350. Based on these 16) Thompson GA. Determining the slow crack growth parameter
results, FiltekTM Z350 is the material of choice for core and Weibull two-parameter estimates of bilaminate disks
by constant displacement-rate flexural testing. Dent Mater
build-up. Another alternative for core material is bulk
2004; 20: 51-62.
fill resin composite because it exhibited high strength 17) Quinn JB, Quinn GD. A practical and systematic review of
and reliability. Importantly, it can be cured as a single Weibull statistics for reporting strengths of dental materials.
placement, thereby reducing the patient chair time. Dent Mater 2010; 26: 135-147.
18) Bona AD, Anusavice KJ, DeHoff PH. Weibull analysis and
flexural strength of hot-pressed core and veneered ceramic
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS structures. Dent Mater 2003; 19: 662-669.
19) Sancakli HS, Yildiz E, Bayrak I, Ozel S. Effect of different
The author wishes to thank the staff at the Research
adhesive strategies on the post-operative sensitivity of class I
Unit, Chulalongkorn Univeristy for valuable advice and composite restorations. Eur J Dent 2014; 8: 15-22.
use of the research equipment. 20) Rodrigues SA Jr, Ferracane JL, Della Bona A. Flexural
strength and weibull analysis of a microhybrid and a nanofill
composite evaluated by 3- and 4-point bending test. Dent
REFERENCES Mater 2008; 24: 426-431.
1) Gher ME Jr, Dunlap RM, Anderson MH, Kuhl LV. Clinical 21) Watts DC. Elastic moduli and visco-elastic relaxation. J Dent
survey of fractured teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 1987; 114: 174- 1994; 22: 154-158.
177. 22) Combe EC, Shaglouf AM, Watts DC, Wilson NH. Mechanical
2) Yuzugullu B, Ciftci Y, Saygili G, Canay S. Diametral tensile properties of direct core build-up materials. Dent Mater 1999;
and compressive strengths of several types of core materials. 15: 158-165.
J Prosthodont 2008; 17: 102-107. 23) Rosatto CM, Bicalho AA, Veríssimo C, Bragança GF, Rodrigues
3) Cho GC, Kaneko LM, Donovan TE, White SN. Diametral and MP, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A, Soares CJ. Mechanical
compressive strength of dental core materials. J Prosthet properties, shrinkage stress, cuspal strain and fracture
Dent 1999; 82: 272-276. resistance of molars restored with bulk-fill composites and
4) Kapoor N, Bahuguna N, Anand S. Influence of composite incremental filling technique. J Dent 2015; 43: 1519-1528.
insertion technique on gap formation. J Conserv Dent 2016; 24) Lendenmann U. Scientific documentation MultiCore®.
19: 77-81. Research and Development Scientific Services. Ivoclar
5) Krejci I, Lutz F. Marginal adaptation of Class V restorations Vivadent AG, Liechtenstein; 2004.
using different restorative techniques. J Dent 1991; 19: 24- 25) Waters NE. The mechanical properties of biological materials.
32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1980.
6) Sarrett DC. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials 26) Marshall GW Jr, Balooch M, Gallagher RR, Gansky SA,
testing for posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater 2005; Marshall SJ. Mechanical properties of the dentinoenamel
21: 9-20. junction: AFM studies of nanohardness, elastic modulus, and
7) Vidhawan SA, Yap AU, Ornaghi BP, Banas K, Neo JC, Pfeifer fracture. J Biomed Mater Res 2001; 54: 87-95.
CS, Rosa V. Fatigue stipulation of bulk-fill composites: An in