Comparative evaluation of physical and mechanical properties of ion-releasing and non-ion-releasing bulk-fill restorative composites

Abstract

Objective: This laboratory study aimed to compare and contrast the performance of non-ion and ion-releasing restorative composites.

Methodology: This in vitro experimental study was conducted King Saud University from March to June 2025. Ten disc-shaped and ten bar-shaped specimens were fabricated from each study group to evaluate depth of cure, bending strength, water sorption and solubility. The study groups included four bulk-fill restorative composites, consisting of two conventional non-ion-releasing formulations—Filtek Bulk and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill—and two ion-releasing formulations—Beautifil Bulk Restorative and ACTIVA BioACTIVE Bulk. The one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey’s post hoc tests for multiple comparisons was conducted with a significance level set at P = 0.05.

Results: Filtek Bulk demonstrated the highest depth of cure (4.34 ± 0.29 mm) and bending strength (123.34 ± 9.05 MPa), succeeded by Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (3.81 ± 0.17 mm, 115.78 ± 10.98 MPa). Additionally, Filtek Bulk and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill exhibited significantly lower water sorption (0.49 ± 0.13% and 0.79 ± 0.10%, respectively) and solubility (0.01 ± 0.00% and 0.04 ± 0.00%, respectively) compared to ion-releasing composites, Beautifil Bulk Restorative and ACTIVA BioACTIVE Bulk (1.26 ± 0.19% and 1.42 ± 0.20%; 0.10 ± 0.01% and 0.14 ± 0.01%, respectively) (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: While ion-releasing composites offer the benefit of reducing secondary caries risk and remineralization of the tooth, their physical and mechanical properties may not be on par with those of conventional non-ion-releasing restorative composites, potentially affecting their long-term performance in deep restorations. Therefore, the clinicians are advised to exercise caution in using these restorative composites.