Comparative Mechanical Properties of Bulk-Fill Resins

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the flexural and compressive strengths of a new sonicactivated bulk-fill system (Sonicfill) with other bulk-fill resins and a universal posterior composite resin. Materials and Methods: A low-stress flowable base resin material (SDR), a bulk-fill composite resin (Tetric Evo Ceram), a universal posterior composite (GC G-aenial), and the Sonicfill system were compared. The specimens were prepared for each group following ISO Standard 4049 (flexural strength) and ADA 27 specifications (compressive strength). One-way variance analysis and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to determine the statistical differences among groups (p 0.05). Results: The Sonicfill system presented significantly higher compressive strength than other groups (p p > 0.001). Conclusion: Due to the ability to place restorations with single increment and ease of use, the Sonicfill system can be an alternative for posterior restorations.