Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026
Comparative evaluation of physical and mechanical properties of ion-releasing and non-ion-releasing bulk-fill restorative composites.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alsarani Majed M, Al-Mutairi Manal, Khan Aftab Ahmed
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This laboratory study aimed to compare the performance of non-ion and ion-releasing restorative composites.
METHODOLOGY: This in vitro experimental study was conducted at King Saud University from March 2025 to June 2025. The study groups included four bulk-fill restorative composites, consisting of two conventional non-ion-releasing formulations-Filtek Bulk and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill-and two ion-releasing formulations-Beautifil Bulk Restorative and ACTIVA BioACTIVE Bulk. A total of 25 samples were prepared per group: five disc-shaped (n = 5/group) for depth of cure, ten disc-shaped (n = 10/group) for water sorption and solubility, and ten bar-shaped (n = 10/group) for bending strength testing. The one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey's post hoc tests for multiple comparisons was conducted with a significance level set at P = 0.05.
RESULTS: Filtek Bulk demonstrated the highest depth of cure (4.34 ± 0.29 mm) and bending strength (123.34 ± 9.05 MPa), succeeded by Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (3.81 ± 0.17 mm, 115.78 ± 10.98 MPa). Additionally, Filtek Bulk and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill exhibited significantly lower water sorption (0.49 ± 0.13% and 0.79 ± 0.10%, respectively) and solubility (0.01 ± 0.00% and 0.04 ± 0.00%, respectively) compared to ion-releasing composites, Beautifil Bulk Restorative and ACTIVA BioACTIVE Bulk (1.26 ± 0.19% and 1.42 ± 0.20%; 0.10 ± 0.01% and 0.14 ± 0.01%, respectively) (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: While ion-releasing composites offer the benefit of reducing secondary caries risk and remineralization of the tooth, their physical and mechanical properties may not be on par with those of conventional non-ion-releasing restorative composites, potentially affecting their long-term performance in deep restorations. Therefore, the clinicians are advised to exercise caution in using these restorative composites.
METHODOLOGY: This in vitro experimental study was conducted at King Saud University from March 2025 to June 2025. The study groups included four bulk-fill restorative composites, consisting of two conventional non-ion-releasing formulations-Filtek Bulk and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill-and two ion-releasing formulations-Beautifil Bulk Restorative and ACTIVA BioACTIVE Bulk. A total of 25 samples were prepared per group: five disc-shaped (n = 5/group) for depth of cure, ten disc-shaped (n = 10/group) for water sorption and solubility, and ten bar-shaped (n = 10/group) for bending strength testing. The one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey's post hoc tests for multiple comparisons was conducted with a significance level set at P = 0.05.
RESULTS: Filtek Bulk demonstrated the highest depth of cure (4.34 ± 0.29 mm) and bending strength (123.34 ± 9.05 MPa), succeeded by Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (3.81 ± 0.17 mm, 115.78 ± 10.98 MPa). Additionally, Filtek Bulk and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill exhibited significantly lower water sorption (0.49 ± 0.13% and 0.79 ± 0.10%, respectively) and solubility (0.01 ± 0.00% and 0.04 ± 0.00%, respectively) compared to ion-releasing composites, Beautifil Bulk Restorative and ACTIVA BioACTIVE Bulk (1.26 ± 0.19% and 1.42 ± 0.20%; 0.10 ± 0.01% and 0.14 ± 0.01%, respectively) (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: While ion-releasing composites offer the benefit of reducing secondary caries risk and remineralization of the tooth, their physical and mechanical properties may not be on par with those of conventional non-ion-releasing restorative composites, potentially affecting their long-term performance in deep restorations. Therefore, the clinicians are advised to exercise caution in using these restorative composites.