Physical Properties Of Different Orthodontic Composites

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the water sorption, solubility, and compressive strength of 3 traditional orthodontic composites and 1 flowable composite after 1, 7, and 30 days of immersion in water.Materials and Method: The traditional orthodontic composites used in this study were ORTHO Bracket Paste (Bisco, Schaumburg, IL, USA), Transbond XT (3M, Monrovia, CA, USA), and Light Bond (Reliance, Itasca, IL, USA). The flowable composite used was Tetric EvoFlow (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein). The specimens were subjected to water sorption and solubility tests based on the ISO 4049 and ADA No. 8 requirements. Mechanical tests were performed with an Instron Universal Test Machine.Results: There were no significant differences in solubility among the 4 materials after 1 and 7 days (p > 0.05). Tetric EvoFlow had a lower compressive strength than the traditional orthodontic composites (p > 0.05) and exhibited significantly higher water sorption than the traditional orthodontic composites after immersing them in water for 1, 7, and 30 days (p < 0.001).Conclusion: The results revealed that the flowable composite had higher solubility and water absorption but less compressive strength than the traditional orthodontic composite resins used in this study.