Dental Materials Journal 2019; 38(2): 177–181

Comparison of physical properties of three commercial composite core build-

up materials
Sasinisa WARANGKULKASEMKIT and Piyapanna PUMPALUK

Department of Advanced General Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, 6 Yothi Road, Ratchathewi District, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
Corresponding author, Piyapanna PUMPALUK; E-mail: piyapanna@hotmail.com

Various materials have been used for core build-up when restoring the coronal portion of the tooth. Currently, bulk-fill resin
composites have been produced to restore a large posterior cavity in single increment. This study aimed to evaluate the compressive
strength, flexural strength, and microhardness of three commercial composite core build-up materials. All data were analyzed by one-
way ANOVA and Tukey test methods (α=0.05). Flexural strength data were subjected to Weibull statistics analysis. All three groups
presented significant differences in the compressive strength, flexural strength, and Knoop hardness. FiltekTM Z350 XT had the
greatest compressive strength (MPa) and Knoop hardness while FiltekTM bulk fill had the highest flexural strength. MultiCore®Flow
had the lowest properties; however, it revealed the highest Weibull modulus (m) value. With regard to the properties tested in this
study, bulk-fill resin composite can be used as an alternative to conventional resin composite for core build-up material.

Keywords: Flexural strength, Weibull statistics, Core build-up material, Bulk fill, Resin composite

properties of conventional composite resin (FiltekTM

INTRODUCTION
An endodontic treated tooth generally has lost tooth
structure, either by caries or access preparation.
Therefore, it may not be able to withstand a chewing
force1). Core build-up materials provide an abutment
having a normal anatomical form as well as increased
resistance and shape retention for the restoration. The
ideal core build-up material should provide sufficient
compressive and tensile strengths in order to withstand
the masticatory and para-functional forces2,3).
Composite resin is a common material used for core
build-up to strengthen lost tooth structure. However,
it needs to be restored using an incremental technique
to ensure proper polymerization. However, multiple
increments can leave voids and gaps due to the difficulty
during placement in a deep cavity4). Another problem
when using a resin composite is polymerization shrinkage
that occurs at the resin composite-tooth interface. This
phenomenon produces interfacial gaps, which can lead
to microleakage, marginal discoloration and secondary
caries5). Therefore, bulk fill resin composites have
been introduced to overcome the problem of layering
techniques leading to voids or contamination between
layers6). Additionally, it has been claimed that it is
possible to save the restorative procedure time by placing
up to 4–5 mm thickness that can be photo-polymerized
in one step7). Another material commonly used for core
build-up is dual cured resin composite. It was developed
in an attempt to overcome the limitations of light-cured
material. It can be polymerized by both light and self-
activation8). Therefore, the dual cured composite is a
useful material for restoring deep cavities. However,
there have been few studies comparing the physical
Color figures can be viewed in the online issue, which is avail-
able at J-STAGE.
Received Jan 31, 2018: Accepted May 25, 2018
doi:10.4012/dmj.2018-038 JOI JST.JSTAGE/dmj/2018-038
Z350), new generation (high-viscosity) of bulk fill (FiltekTM
Bulk fill), and dual-cure composite resin (MultiCore®
Flow) as core build-up materials. In addition, the use of
informative Weibull analysis9) of these materials is still
limited.
This study aims to evaluate and compare the
physical properties of three commercial core build-up
materials using compressive strength, flexural strength
and microhardness.
The null hypothesis tested herein was that the three
core build-up materials have no difference in physical
properties.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study materials
Three types of resin composites were used in this study
(Table 1): conventional resin composite (FiltekTM Z350,
3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), high viscosity bulk-fill
resin composite (FiltekTM Bulk-fill, 3M ESPE) and core
build-up material (MultiCore® Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent,
Schaan, Leichtenstein). Each specimen was prepared
according to the manufacturer’s recommendation under
fluorescence light with the room temperature 22°C.
Compressive strength
Fifteen specimens of each group were prepared using
a stainless steel split mold with cylindrical shape size
6 mm (height)×4 mm (diameter). Resin composite was
filled into the mold that placed between two glass slides
and Mylar sheets. For conventional composite group,
the specimen was placed 2 mm incremental layers.
Each layer was cured for 20 s using a light-emitting
diode (LED) curing unit (Elipar S10, 3M ESPE). For
the high viscosity bulk fill, the specimens were placed
178 Dent Mater J 2019; 38(2): 177–181

Table 1 Materials used in this study

Fillerload Batch Number

Material Composition Manufacturer
(wt%/vol%) (lot number)

Light cure composite:

Bisphenol-A-glycidyl methacrylate (Bis-GMA),
Ethoxylated bisphenol-A dimethacrylate (Bis-EMA),
3M ESPE,
FiltekTM Urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) with small
78.50/59.5 St.Paul, N708953
Z350 amounts of Triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate
MN, USA
(TEGDMA) non-agglomerated/non-aggregated,
20 nm nanosilica filler, and loosely bound
agglomerated zirconia/silica nanocluster

Light cure composite:

Bis-GMA, Bis-EMA, Aromatic urethane dimethacrylate
(AUDMA), UDMA and 1, 12-dodecane-DMA
Filtek TM
non-agglomerated/non-aggregated 20 nm silica filler, 76.5/42.5 3M ESPE N682084
Bulk fill
a non-agglomerated/non-aggregated 4 to 11 nm
zirconia filler, an aggregated zirconia/silica cluster
filler and a ytterbium trifluoride filler

Dual cure composite:

Ivoclar Vivadent,
MultiCore® Bis-GMA, UDMA, TEGDMA
54.65/46 Schaan, T35741
Flow Inorganic fillers (barium glass, Ba-Al-fluorosilicate
Leichtenstein
glass, silicon dioxide, and ytterbium trifluoride)

by bulk technique up to 3 mm and each layer was cured equation:

for 20 s. Dual-cured core build-up materials was placed
in one bulk and then cured for 20 s. All specimens
were irradiated at the top and bottom surfaces. They
were stored in distrilled water at 37°C for 24 h with
100% humidity. Test specimens were subjected to the
compressive strength tests using a universal testing
machine (LR10K, LLOYD Instrument, UK) at a cross
head speed 0.5 mm/min. The stress at fracture (S) was
calculated according to the following equation:
S=F/((d/2)2π)
Where F is the load at fracture (N), d is the mean
diameter of the specimen (mm)
Flexural strength
Flexural strength (σ) was determined by a three-point
bending test. Thirty-five specimens in each group
were fabricated using a stainless steel split mold
with dimentions of 25±0.1 mm (length)×2±0.1 mm
(height)×2±0.1 mm (width), as specified in ISO 4049:2009
standards10). The specimens were photo-polymerized
using LED curing unit (Elipar S10, 3M ESPE). The
center of the specimen was cured first and then the
polymerization was performed by curing overlapping
regions between right and left from the center until the
entire specimen surface were polymerized. Each area
was cured for 20 s and irradiation was performed at the
top and bottom of the specimens. All specimens were
stored in distrilled water at 37°C for 24 h with 100%
humidity. Then they were submitted to the universal
testing machine (EZ-S, SHIMADZU, Kyoto, Japan) at a
cross head speed of 0.75 mm/min until fracture occured.
All data were calculated according to the following
σ=3Fl/2bh2
Where F is the maximum load (N), l is the distance
between the supports (mm), b is the width of the
specimen (mm), and h is the height of specimen (mm)
Knoop microhardness
The Knoop microhardness test was performed in order to
determine the microhardness of resin composite, which
can predict the clinical performance of restorations. The
specimens were made in a stainless steel split mold size
2 mm (height)×3 mm (diameter). All specimens were
then stored in distrilled water at 37°C for 24 h prior to
testing. The specimens were submitted to the Knoop
hardness test (KHN) using a load of 10 g with dwell
time of 20 s when using a digital microhardness tester
(FM-ARS-900, Future-test, Kanagawa, Japan). The
specimens were positioned beneath the indenter of a
digital microhardness tester and five indentations were
measured on each specimen surface.
Fracture analysis
The fracture surfaces of the specimens were coated with
gold for 60 s in Quorum Q150R ES (serial no. 15112,
Quorum Technologies, East Sussex, UK) at a sputter
current of 25 mA. They were observed in a scanning
electron microscope (SEM; JSM-IT300LV, serial no.
MP1372001500150, JEOL, Tokyo, Japan)
Statistical analysis
Data obtained from the compressive, flexural, and knoop
hardness tests were analyzed by One-way ANOVA
and Tukey’s test (α=0.05). Reliability of materials and
 Dent Mater J 2019; 38(2): 177–181 179

probability of failure were analyzed by Weibull analysis9) the other hand, FiltekTM Bulk fill had the greatest mean
using the flexural strength data. The following equation flexural strength (142.43 MPa), followed by FiltekTM
was used to evaluate the cumulative probability of Z350 (125.22 MPa) and MultiCore® Flow (114.71 MPa).
failure, Pf The result from the Weibull analyses (Fig. 1)
Pf =1−exp(−(σ/σ0)m)
Where Pf is the probability of failure, σ is the flexural
strength, σ0 is the characteristic strength (Pf =63.2%), m
is the Weibull modulus. Plotting ln[ln1/1−Pf )] against
lnσ will provide a slope with the value of the Weibull
modulus.

RESULTS
The results from the ANOVA analyses indicated that
there were significant differences at the 95% level
(p<0.05) in the mean compressive strength, flexural
strength, and Knoop hardness of three materials (Table
2). FiltekTM Z350 had the greatest compressive strength
and Knoop hardness, which were 283.43 MPa and 66.22
respectively, followed by FiltekTM Bulk fill (239.75 MPa,
48.99) and MultiCore® Flow (193.25 MPa, 40.69). On Fig. 1 Weibull analyses.

Table 2 Mean values of compressive strength (MPa, n=15), flexural strength (MPa, n=35), Knoop hardness (n=5) and
Weibull statistic values

Compressive Flexural Knoop Weibull statistic

Materials
strength (SD) strength (SD) hardness (SD) m σ0 (MPa) r2

FiltekTM Z350 283.43 (19.04) 125.22 (10.84) 66.22 (1.86) 11.38 131.83 0.89

FiltekTM
Bulk fill 239.75 (16.58) 142.43 (10.77) 48.99 (1.66) 15.76 147.21 0.95

MultiCore® Flow 193.25 (16.15) 114.71 (8.73) 40.69 (1.83) 16.60 118.03 0.99

Fig. 2 Images showing internal pores at the fracture surfaces of three materials at ×300; (A) FiltekTM Z350,
(B) FiltekTM Bulk fill, (C) Multicore®Flow and at ×700, (D) FiltekTM Z350, (E) FiltekTM Bulk fill, (F)
Multicore®Flow.
180 Dent Mater J 2019; 38(2): 177–181
showed that MultiCore® Flow had the greatest Weibull
modulus (16.60), followed by FiltekTM Bulk fill (15.76)
and FiltekTM Z350 (11.38). The characteristic strengths
of FiltekTM Bulk fill, FiltekTM Z350 and MultiCore® Flow
were 147.21, 131.83 and114.71 MPa, respectively.
The SEM images (Fig. 2) show the defects associated
with the fracture sites. FiltekTM Z350 had the largest
porosity size, while MultiCore®Flow had the lowest size
of such defects.
DISCUSSION
Mechanical properties are important factors for the
success of core build-up restorative dental materials.
This is because they must withstand the forces due to
mastication and para-function. This study evaluated
some of the properties, including compressive strength,
flexural strength, and Knoop hardness (KHN) of three
resin composite materials. The null hypothesis of
this study was rejected, since there were statistically
significant differences in the properties of the three
groups. The results of this study demonstrated that
FiltekTMZ350 had the greatest compressive strength
and Knoop hardness, whereas FiltekTMBulk fill had the
greatest flexural strength. These results confirm an
earlier conclusion11) that bulk fill resin-based composites
show lower mechanical properties (except for flexural
strength) than nanohybrid and microhybrid resin-based
composites.
It is known that the mechanical properties of the
composites are related to their filler contents12) and to
the type and size of filler13). From the composition (Table
1), FiltekTMZ350 has a higher filler content (78.5 wt%,
59.5 vol%) than FiltekTMBulk fill (76.5 wt%, 42.5 vol%)
and MultiCore®Flow (54.65 wt%, 46 vol%). For the filler
types, silica and zirconia fillers are found in FiltekTMZ350
and FiltekTMBulk fill, whereas MultiCore®Flow
contains barium glass and silicon dioxide fillers. Bulk
fill composite materials have been developed to offer
low polymerization shrinkage, easy use and improved
depth of cure. When it is necessary to increase the
depth of penetration of the light initiating the cure, the
amount of filler particles has to be reduced. Therefore,
FiltekTMBulk fill has lower compressive strength and
hardness compared to FiltekTMZ350. MultiCore®Flow
has the lowest filler content and also has no zirconia
in its composition. Consequently, it has the lowest
strength. Nevertheless, all three materials tested were
found to have compressive strength values (>100 MPa)
greater than the minimum value (50 MPa) recommended
for dental amalgam, which is clinically well-proven for
core build-up2).
Both filler morphology and filler loading influence
the flexural strength, flexural modulus, and hardness12).
Moreover, the type of monomer in the matrix influences
these properties. One study14) reported that monomer
containing Bis-GMA or TEGDMA substituted by UDMA
results in an increase in flexural strength. Also that
substitution of Bis-GMA by TEGDMA reduces the
flexural strength14). In this study, TEGDMA monomer
contained in FiltekTMZ350 and MultiCore®Flow leads to
lower flexural strength compared to FiltekTMBulk fill.
Weibull statistics relate to the reliability of
the material in use. It does this by providing the
probability of failure. Simple measurement of fracture
strength alone cannot predict structure failure. That
is because it provides an insight into only the stresses
that the material will withstand for a given flaw size
distribution15). On the other hand, the Weibull modulus
(m) is a parameter that describes the variability of the
strength of brittle materials. A high Weibull modulus
indicates higher reliability of materials16). In addition,
materials with a high Weibull modulus are more
predictable and less likely to break at a stress much
lower than a mean experimental value17). The second
parameter of the Weibull analysis is the characteristic
strength (σ). This is a parameter that corresponds to
the stress level giving a 63.2% probability of failure7,18).
Thus Weibull characteristic strength values (Pf =63.2%)
are slightly greater than the mean strength values
(Pf =50%).
In this study, Multicore®Flow has a Weibull modulus
(m) higher than other groups. This may be because of
the lower viscosity of uncured Multicore®Flow, As a
result surface defects within the material are reduced
and crack propagation is minimized. SEM analysis
confirms this result, showing the smallest defects on the
fractured surfaces (Figs. 2C and F). FiltekTM Bulk fill has
similar m value to Multicore®Flow while FiltekTMZ350
has the lowest m value. The result from SEM of the
FiltekTMZ350 group (Figs. 2A and D) showed that there
were the largest porosities on the fracture surfaces. These
porosities may result from the placement technique that
involves building up the material in multiple increments.
This technique necessitates higher chair time and
increases the risk of voids and contamination between
layers. Another factor responsible for the gaps in the
material is clinical skill of the operator. The operator
that carefully performed and strictly followed according
to the manufacturer’s instruction will give the good
clinical outcome. One study revealed that operator skill
and experience play a major role in the post-operative
sensitivity outcome19). Therefore, materials that use
a bulk technique tend to provide smaller gaps than do
conventional resin composites that using an incremental
technique. Furthermore, in this study, FiltekTM Bulk fill
had a similar m value as an earlier study which had
m=14.211). On the other hand, it was higher than that
found by Vidhawan et al.7) In addition, the m value of
FiltekTMZ350 in this project (m=11.38) is higher than
that reported as m=8.320) These differences in m value
could be due to the differences in methodology used in
the earlier work.
Although the strength of core build-up material is
the factor that influenced the fracture resistance of the
abutment, the matching moduli between the material
and the dentin is also important. If there is too mismatch
of the elastic values, interfacial stress may occur from
either thermal, mechanical, or shrinkage strain in the
material21). Therefore, core build-up material should
 Dent Mater J 2019; 38(2): 177–181
have high elastic modulus similar to tooth structure to
withstand the forces of mastication and polymerization
shrinkage stresses22). The elastic modulus values of
FiltekTM Z350, FiltekTM Bulk fill and Multicore® were
reported approximately 1423), 10.123) and 924) Gpa,
respectively. Flexural strength of dentin ranged from
245 to 280 MPa25). and modulus of elasticity of dentin
ranged from 11–20 Gpa26). Therefore, FiltekTM Z350 has
strength and modulus value approaches to dentin’s more
than other groups.
CONCLUSION
Three chosen core build-up materials have significant
differences in compressive strength, flexural strength
and Knoop hardness. FiltekTMZ350 has the highest mean
compressive strength and Knoop hardness whereas
FiltekTMBulk fill have the highest flexural strength.
MultiCore®Flow and FiltekTMBulk fill have higher
Weibull modulus than FiltekTMZ350. Based on these
results, FiltekTM Z350 is the material of choice for core
build-up. Another alternative for core material is bulk
fill resin composite because it exhibited high strength
and reliability. Importantly, it can be cured as a single
placement, thereby reducing the patient chair time.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to thank the staff at the Research
Unit, Chulalongkorn Univeristy for valuable advice and
use of the research equipment.
REFERENCES
1) Gher ME Jr, Dunlap RM, Anderson MH, Kuhl LV. Clinical
survey of fractured teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 1987; 114: 174-
177.
2) Yuzugullu B, Ciftci Y, Saygili G, Canay S. Diametral tensile
and compressive strengths of several types of core materials.
J Prosthodont 2008; 17: 102-107.
3) Cho GC, Kaneko LM, Donovan TE, White SN. Diametral and
compressive strength of dental core materials. J Prosthet
Dent 1999; 82: 272-276.
4) Kapoor N, Bahuguna N, Anand S. Influence of composite
insertion technique on gap formation. J Conserv Dent 2016;
19: 77-81.
5) Krejci I, Lutz F. Marginal adaptation of Class V restorations
using different restorative techniques. J Dent 1991; 19: 24-
32.
6) Sarrett DC. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials
testing for posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater 2005;
21: 9-20.
7) Vidhawan SA, Yap AU, Ornaghi BP, Banas K, Neo JC, Pfeifer
CS, Rosa V. Fatigue stipulation of bulk-fill composites: An in
181
vitro appraisal. Dent Mater 2015; 31: 1068-1074.
8) Kournetas N, Tzoutzas I, Eliades G. Monomer conversion in
dual-cured core buildup materials. Oper Dent 2011; 36: 92-
97.
9) Weibull W. Statistical distribution function of wide
applicability. J Appl Mech 1951; 18: 293-297.
10) International Standard Organization (ISO). Dentistry–
Polymer-based restorative materials; 2009: ISO4049.
11) Ilie N, Bucuta S, Draenert M. Bulk-fill resin-based composites:
an in vitro assessment of their mechanical performance. Oper
Dent 2013; 38: 618-625.
12) Kim KH, Ong JL, Okuno O. The effect of filler loading and
morphology on the mechanical properties of contemporary
composites. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87: 642-649.
13) Li Y, Swartz ML, Phillips RW, Moore BK, Roberts TA. Effect
of filler content and size on properties of composites. J Dent
Res 1985; 64: 1396-1401.
14) Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A. Influence of UEDMA BisGMA and
TEGDMA on selected mechanical properties of experimental
resin composites. Dent Mater 1998; 14: 51-56.
15) Kelly JR. Perspectives on strength. Dent Mater 1995; 11: 103-
110.
16) Thompson GA. Determining the slow crack growth parameter
and Weibull two-parameter estimates of bilaminate disks
by constant displacement-rate flexural testing. Dent Mater
2004; 20: 51-62.
17) Quinn JB, Quinn GD. A practical and systematic review of
Weibull statistics for reporting strengths of dental materials.
Dent Mater 2010; 26: 135-147.
18) Bona AD, Anusavice KJ, DeHoff PH. Weibull analysis and
flexural strength of hot-pressed core and veneered ceramic
structures. Dent Mater 2003; 19: 662-669.
19) Sancakli HS, Yildiz E, Bayrak I, Ozel S. Effect of different
adhesive strategies on the post-operative sensitivity of class I
composite restorations. Eur J Dent 2014; 8: 15-22.
20) Rodrigues SA Jr, Ferracane JL, Della Bona A. Flexural
strength and weibull analysis of a microhybrid and a nanofill
composite evaluated by 3- and 4-point bending test. Dent
Mater 2008; 24: 426-431.
21) Watts DC. Elastic moduli and visco-elastic relaxation. J Dent
1994; 22: 154-158.
22) Combe EC, Shaglouf AM, Watts DC, Wilson NH. Mechanical
properties of direct core build-up materials. Dent Mater 1999;
15: 158-165.
23) Rosatto CM, Bicalho AA, Veríssimo C, Bragança GF, Rodrigues
MP, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A, Soares CJ. Mechanical
properties, shrinkage stress, cuspal strain and fracture
resistance of molars restored with bulk-fill composites and
incremental filling technique. J Dent 2015; 43: 1519-1528.
24) Lendenmann U. Scientific documentation MultiCore®.
Research and Development Scientific Services. Ivoclar
Vivadent AG, Liechtenstein; 2004.
25) Waters NE. The mechanical properties of biological materials.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1980.
26) Marshall GW Jr, Balooch M, Gallagher RR, Gansky SA,
Marshall SJ. Mechanical properties of the dentinoenamel
junction: AFM studies of nanohardness, elastic modulus, and
fracture. J Biomed Mater Res 2001; 54: 87-95.