This study evaluated the behavior of a new generation of bulk-fill resin composites after prolonged exposure to an aqueous environment and accelerated aging in ethanol. Six bulk-fill materials were tested (Tetric PowerFill, Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, Fill-Up!, Tetric PowerFlow, SDR Plus Bulk Fill Flowable) and compared to two conventional reference materials (Tetric EvoCeram and Tetric EvoFlow). Flexural strength, modulus, and Weibull parameters were examined at three time points: 1 day, 30 days, and 30 days followed by ethanol immersion. Degree of conversion after 30 days, water sorption, and solubility up to 90 days were also investigated. Filtek One Bulk Fill had the highest flexural strength and modulus among the tested materials, followed by Tetric PowerFill and SDR plus. Flexural strength and modulus of high-viscosity bulk-fill materials showed higher stability after accelerated aging in ethanol compared to their low-viscosity counterparts and reference materials. After 30 days, the degree of conversion was above 80% for all tested materials. Dual-cure material Fill-Up! was the best-cured material. The water sorption was highest for Fill-Up!, Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative, and Tetric EvoFlow, while solubility was highest for Tetric EvoCeram. After aging in water and ethanol, new generation high-viscosity bulk-fill materials showed better mechanical properties than low-viscosity bulk-fill and conventional composites under extended light curing conditions.

The aim of the study was to examine the impact of rapid high-intensity polymerization on water sorption and solubility of a new generation of bulk-fill composite materials. Five materials were tested: a conventional composite Filtek Z250 (3M, St. Paul, USA) and four bulk-fill composites, Filtek One Bulk Fill (3M), Tetric PowerFill (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein), Tetric PowerFlow (Ivoclar Vivadent), SDR Plus (Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany). Composite specimens with a 9-mm diameter and a 2-mm height (n = 6) were polymerized with a high-intensity curing unit (Bluephase® PowerCure, Ivoclar Vivadent). The control group was polymerized for a total of 40 s on both sides (1193 mW / cm²) and 3s group for 3 s on one side (3053 mW/cm²). Water sorption and solubility were measured by ISO 4049 method up to 30 days of immersion. The results were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA with Tukey post-hoc correction. Different polymerization protocols for the same material were compared by t-test (p <0.05). The 3s polymerization protocol increased the solubility of all materials. Filtek One Bulk Fill showed the highest water sorption and solubility values, and Tetric PowerFlow proved to be a stable material with low values of tested parameters. During immersion, a saturation of specimens was achieved in low-viscosity bulk-fill composites within two weeks, while in other materials it was not achieved within 30 days, or more, following the immersion. Rapid polymerization caused an increase in solubility, which could affect the biocompatibility of the investigated materials not intended for the 3s curing. SDR Plus and Filtek One Bulk Fill should not be polymerized with rapid high-intensity curing due to increased solubility that exceeds ISO 4049:2009 limits.

This study analysed flexural properties, microhardness, and the degree of conversion (DC) of five bulk-fill composites under clinically relevant conditions (4 mm thick specimens) in comparison to 2 mm specimens according to ISO 4049. Additionally, the effect of rapid polymerisation on 4 mm specimens was evaluated after accelerated aging. DC was measured using Fourier transform infrared spectrometry at 2 and 4 mm thick layers, while flexural properties and Vickers microhardness were tested using 16 × 2 × 2 mm or 16 × 2 × 4 mm specimens. Three polymerisation protocols were used: (I) “ISO”: 2 mm thickness, 1000 mW/cm², double-sided; (II) “10 s”: 4 mm thickness, 1000 mW/cm², one-sided; and (III) “3 s”: 4 mm thickness, 2600 mW/cm², one-sided. Mechanical properties were tested after 1 day, after 10,000 thermocycles, and after 10,000 thermocycles followed by a 7-day immersion in absolute ethanol. The “ISO” protocol produced a higher DC and microhardness of all materials. Elastic modulus was significantly higher for the “ISO” protocol compared to the 4 mm specimens. The differences in flexural strength for all polymerisation protocols were equalised after thermocycling and immersion in absolute ethanol. All tested materials met the ISO 4049 flexural strength requirement (80 MPa) for all polymerisation methods and all aging conditions. Rapid polymerisation achieved nearly optimal properties (ISO), except for elastic modulus, which was significantly reduced in 4 mm samples.

Background: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of calcium silicate-based sealers (BioRoot RCS and MTA Fillapex) compared to an epoxy-based sealer (AH Plus). Materials and methods: The study was conducted in vitro with the cell lines HepG2 and V79 to evaluate cytotoxicity and genotoxicity using the comet and micronucleus assays. Eluates of the materials were tested at two different concentrations (3 cm²/mL and 0.5 cm²/mL) after an exposure time of 72 h. Data were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests (p < 0.05). Results: At lower concentrations in both cell lines, MTA Fillapex showed no significant difference in the measured comet assay parameters compared to the negative control (p > 0.05). In addition, it showed significantly lower genotoxic effects compared to AH Plus for all comet assay parameters, concentrations, and cell lines (p ≤ 0.001). BioRoot RCS showed lower primary DNA damage (p ≤ 0.001) than AH Plus, only at higher concentrations and in the HepG2 cell line. Concerning the two tested bioceramic sealers, BioRoot RCS showed higher tail intensity values compared to MTA Fillapex (p < 0.05). In contrast to the results of the comet assay, BioRoot RCS significantly reduced the number of nuclear buds and nucleoplasmic bridges in the HepG2 cell line compared to MTA Fillapex, whereas reduction in the V79 cell line was only observed for nuclear buds (p < 0.05). Both materials increased the number of apoptotic cells compared to the negative control (p < 0.05). In comparison to AH Plus, BioRoot RCS and MTA Fillapex significantly reduced the number of cells with micronuclei and increased the number of cells with undamaged chromatin (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The findings suggest that MTA Fillapex and BioRoot RCS exhibit superior biocompatibility over AH Plus, as evidenced by their lower cytotoxic and genotoxic effects in vitro. These results support the use of calcium silicate-based sealers in clinical practice, highlighting the need for further studies to evaluate their performance in vivo and their implications for patient safety.