World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 3 ( July-September, 2016 ) > List of Articles


In vitro Comparison of Compressive Strength of Bulk-fill Composites and Nanohybrid Composite

K Pradeep, MA Kuttappa, Adarsh Kudva, Roshni Butula

Citation Information : Pradeep K, Kuttappa M, Kudva A, Butula R. In vitro Comparison of Compressive Strength of Bulk-fill Composites and Nanohybrid Composite. World J Dent 2016; 7 (3):119-122.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1378

Published Online: 01-09-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; The Author(s).



The objective of this study is to measure and compare the compressive strength of two bulk-fill posterior composites (Smart dentin replacement or SDR and Filtek bulk fill) with universal nanohybrid composite (Filtek Z 250XT).

Materials and methods

In this in vitro study, three different types of posterior composites are used as follows: Group 1 – SDR (Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany); group 2 – Filtek bulk-fill (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA); group 3 – Filtek Z-250XT (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA). Ten cylindrical samples of 6 mm height and 4 mm diameter in each group were made using a split brass mold. The composites filled in the brass mold were photopolymerized using light-emitting diode (LED) light-curing unit and the cured samples were stored in water at 37°C for 48 hours before testing. The compressive strength of the stored samples was tested using universal testing machine (Instron 3366, UK) at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/minute. The compressive strength was calculated by dividing the maximum load with area of the samples.


Results are statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey's post hoc test. Analysis showed that SDR and Filtek bulk-fill have greater compressive strength than Filtek Z-250 (p < 0.05). However, there is no statistical difference between compressive strength of SDR and Filtek bulk-fill composites (p > 0.05).

How to cite this article

Pradeep K, Ginjupalli K, Kuttappa MA, Kudva A, Butula R. In vitro Comparison of Compressive Strength of Bulk-fill Composites and Nanohybrid Composite. World J Dent 2016;7(3):119-122.

PDF Share
  1. Evaluation of the compressive strength of hybrid and nanocomposites. J Dent Sch 2012;30(1):24-29.
  2. An evaluation of compressive strength of newer nano composite. J Conserv Dent 2011 Jan;14(1):36-39.
  3. Nanotechnology for dental composites. Int J Nanotechnol 2004 Jan;1(1/2):130-141.
  4. Evaluation of diametrical tensile strength and knoop microhardness of five nanofilled composites in dentin and enamel shades. Stomatologija 2006;8(3):67-69.
  5. In vitro comparative study of compressive strength of different types of composite resins in different periods of time. Iran J Pharm Res 2008;4(1):69-74.
  6. Surface geometry of four nanofiller and one hybrid composite after one-step and multiple-step polishing. Oper Dent 2007 Jul-Aug;32(4):347-355.
  7. Fatigue of packable dental composites. Dent Mater 2007 Feb;23(2):235-242.
  8. Physical properties of current dental nanohybrid and nanofill light-cured resin composites. Dent Mater 2011 Jun;27(6):598-607.
  9. Cuspal deflection and depth of cure in resin-based composite restorations filled by using bulk, incremental and transtooth illumination techniques. J Am Dent Assoc 2011 Oct;142(10):1176-1182.
  10. Flow Product Brochure. Dentsply International; 2010 [accessed 2015 Aug 22]. Available from:
  11. Compressive fatigue behavior of dental restorative composites. Dent Mater J 2007 Nov;26(6):827-837.
  12. Compressive strength and compressive fatigue limit behavior of two fluoride releasing materials. Adv Med 2013;2(3):30-36.
  13. In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites. Clin Oral Invest 2013;17(1):227-235.
  14. Available from:
  15. Available from:
  16. Advantages and challenges of bulk-fill resins. Clin Rep 2012 Jan;5(1):1-5.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.