Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2026

Abstract

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to verify effect of different packing protocols on fracture resistance of

maxillary premolar teeth with standardized mesioocclusodistal (MOD) preparations restored with bioactive composite.

Materials and Methods: Seventy sound maxillary premolar teeth with standardized MOD cavities were randomly

allocated to seven groups (n=10): G1 (control): sound teeth; G2: unrestored MOD preparation; G3: was filled by an

incremental technique with nanohybrid resin composite (Beautifil II LS, Shofu); G4: was filled in bulk with flowable

composite (Beautifil Bulk Flowable, Shofu); G5: bulk filled with nanohybrid composite (Beautifil Bulk, Shofu); G6: was

restored by increment technique with Beautifil Bulk Flowable / Beautifil Bulk and G7: was filled in increment with

Beautiful Flowable/ Beautifil II LS. After being stored 24 hours at 37oC, specimens were subjected to a 4mm diameter

steel sphere in a universal testing machine at a cross-head speed of 5mm/min until fracture occurred. D'Agostino-Pearson

test, Kruskal–Wallis test and Mann–Whitney U tests at a 5% significance level were used to determine the statistical

differences among groups.

Results: A significant difference was resulted between tested groups on mean fracture resistance. Groups G1, G6 and G7

showed the highest mean fracture resistance followed by group G3 and G5 with an insignificant difference between each

other. The lowest mean fracture resistance resulted for G2 and G4.

Conclusions: Bulk fill flowable composite lining under nanohybrid resin composite improved fracture resistance.

Moreover, bulk fill flowable resin composite should be covered by nanohybrid resin composite.

Keywords: Fracture Resistance; Bulk fill; Resin Composite; Flowable Composite Lining, Layering Protocols.

Download

Included in

Dentistry Commons

Share

COinS