Comparison between relative wear resistance of flowable and highly filled composite

Abstract

Traditional flowable composites are known to adapt well to cavity preparations and are easy to apply. They spare clinical time as placing a flowable into a cavity preparation is a fairly easy task compared to having to pack a thicker composite, especially in areas such as a proximal box. The latest trend regarding flowables is the claim that some of them are wear resistant enough to be used for the entire restoration regardless of the classification. This means these specialized flowables can presumably be used to restore even Class II and IV lesions and/or fractures. G-aenial Universal Flo (GC) is being tagged as the “first injectable flowable” that “can also be used as a restorative”. Voco is promoting Grandio Flow as the “first flowable composite that is strong as universal composites” and Shofu is bringing to the market Beautifil Flow Plus, which is stated to be “a flowable for complete anterior and posterior restorations”. In the field of esthetic dentistry flowables are sometimes even applied on the occlusal surface of restorations as an artistic refinement and finishing touch. But as every new trend it is worth putting it into question and testing the wear resistance of flowables. We conducted an in-vitro research in order to compare the wear resistance of flowable composite (SDI Wave) and highly filled, packable composite (Herculite XRV, Kerr) using the chewing simulator “Sofia”. The results presented lower wear resistance of flowables confirming the outcomes of previous researches (1). Therefore the indication for use of flowable composites have some limitation despite the manufacturers’ claims.